Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:47:17 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: FREE BITCOINS -- Environmentally conscious mining!  (Read 12299 times)
skyhigh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 142


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 08:01:28 AM
 #61

I don't think your math, if you done any, holds up here. I'm a bit surprised there is even a renewable expert in this thread and he basically agreed to this?

First of all .. not even start to think about the bitcoin part, I don't even know where to begin. Solar panels cost approx 2500e to 3500e per kWh to build, then you looking at some cost per year to maintain it, and then there is a fact that they lose about 1% of output power per year. The cheaper, China version, even more. Their lifespan is 40yrs at best. Most  European governments pay huge subsidiaries to built renewable energy because they are obligated to get to certain % of all energy to be renewable by the year 2025. Panel efficiency is around 18 to 22%, this will change greatly in the next 10 to 15 years, so your solar plant would be obsolete way before it becomes useless after 40years.

In short it would cost you tons more to produce this electricity for the next 15 to 20 if you wouldn't tun into ANY problems at all. This being rural Romania, you might get robbed with a type of neighbors you mentioned.

Bitcoin part of the project is just plain silly.  1 Gh rigs won't produce ALMOST anything in the next 6 to 12 months. So you are basically building solar panels and throwing all the energy you produce into something that will get you no return at all. What you doing is, you basically speculating that bitcoin would be worth TONS in 20 to 40 years.

There is an easy solution to all of this. Whatever is the total you wanted to invest in this whole project. Lets say $10k, just buy bitcoins and sit on them. No work, no problems, no nothing.


1480733237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480733237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480733237
Reply with quote  #2

1480733237
Report to moderator
1480733237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480733237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480733237
Reply with quote  #2

1480733237
Report to moderator
1480733237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480733237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480733237
Reply with quote  #2

1480733237
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480733237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480733237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480733237
Reply with quote  #2

1480733237
Report to moderator
syb3ria
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


'buntusiast


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 10:41:08 AM
 #62

@BombaUcigasa your project goes ok? If yes I and suppose the others would love to see some stats even if they are raw. Year sun radiation kwh/m2 for example. I'll keep my eye on this thread and wish you luck with the project.
BombaUcigasa
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 03:27:42 PM
 #63

Why not just rent space at a local power generator (hydro)?  The owner/operator would eagerly rent you space and sell you very very cheap electricity...

This is especially true for countries outside of U.S. where everyone is looking for extra income.

The other option is to produce your own electricity and sell back to the grid.  Then, your per Kw cost could be 0.  The only problem with this option is how much is the capital expense?  If we had solar technology that was much more efficient than it is today, this would work nicely.
No hydros close-by, and if there were any, the security and housing costs would replace the electricity saving costs Smiley

Now, if you had land in either a rainy area, or along a river, like in the hills or the mountains, definitely worth to invest in a small power generator.

I would also love to be able to sell power to the grid. It's no possible for me, the two companies in our country have effectively 0.00% of their output produced by solar installations. ZERO. We have more sun than Germany, and they produce in some areas up to 60% of their electricity from the sun. I could also benefit from overclocking and overdriving the miners during over-nominal output (day-long full summer sunny days) and tune back and draw from the grid when needed. I would not require any batteries either!

I don't think your math, if you done any, holds up here. I'm a bit surprised there is even a renewable expert in this thread and he basically agreed to this?
That's because everyone's situation is different. Prices, equipment costs, man-hours of work, existing resources and equipment, etc...

First of all .. not even start to think about the bitcoin part, I don't even know where to begin. Solar panels cost approx 2500e to 3500e per kWh to build, then you looking at some cost per year to maintain it, and then there is a fact that they lose about 1% of output power per year. The cheaper, China version, even more. Their lifespan is 40yrs at best. Most  European governments pay huge subsidiaries to built renewable energy because they are obligated to get to certain % of all energy to be renewable by the year 2025. Panel efficiency is around 18 to 22%, this will change greatly in the next 10 to 15 years, so your solar plant would be obsolete way before it becomes useless after 40years.
I have to agree with you. Solar panels, when acquired and installed under warranty from a public agent, will cost over 2.5$/W. I intend to buy the panels myself at 1$/W and build the arrays, supports, and recycle some existing equipment and buy some new stuff for the power inverters and the other stuff. I don't want 40 years, I expect 15-20 years at most from the cells, which can be recycled, reused, replaced on the way, with newer and better ones. Yes, efficiency will go up. Start early, optimize on the go.

Huge subsidiaries are not making their way over here. They are small. So small that for this year, all the existing requests exceed the whole yearly budget. That is, if I apply today (holy shit bribing and elbowing and bureaucracy circus!!!), I might get a plan approved next year, I have to buy my stuff at extra markup from approved providers (eg, as you explain up to 5$/W!!!!), then I can get back some of my spent money when the budget arrives, in 2-3 years. Why would I want to do that (in Eastern Europe)?

Bitcoin part of the project is just plain silly.  1 Gh rigs won't produce ALMOST anything in the next 6 to 12 months. So you are basically building solar panels and throwing all the energy you produce into something that will get you no return at all. What you doing is, you basically speculating that bitcoin would be worth TONS in 20 to 40 years.
Unfortunately the difficulty rose too fast. It's true, I won't get much but recoup my investment in 2-3 years, if the price/difficulty parity remains the same. I have some checkpoints to ensure that I start the project, one of them is verifying that the bitcoin profitability will hold at the same level or increase during July. If indeed during this month nothing happens with the 3:1 market:cost ratio of bitcoin mining, I can't go ahead. If my predictions hold, then it's a go.

There is an easy solution to all of this. Whatever is the total you wanted to invest in this whole project. Lets say $10k, just buy bitcoins and sit on them. No work, no problems, no nothing.
Except I won't have $10k invested in energy producing equipment which can be resold at a value and I will be bored Cheesy
BombaUcigasa
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 03:43:01 PM
 #64

@BombaUcigasa your project goes ok? If yes I and suppose the others would love to see some stats even if they are raw. Year sun radiation kwh/m2 for example. I'll keep my eye on this thread and wish you luck with the project.
Can't start implementing it yet, I want to confirm myself I understand how the bitcoin price functions and I can rely on the profitability of bitcoin to lock-in produced energy into a non-decaying storage medium. Unused energy is forever lost. With bitcoin, whatever extra energy I don't use, I can store for "later". Expect a clear go or no-go at the end of July. I also have to rework my original premises to include solar tracking (because it is really effective) and tall pylons (because nature invaded everything, trees are tall and thick during these months, and it adds security against thieves and vandals, good luck climbing a smooth two-storey pole)

I did some research and used some database simulations for these specs. Year sun radiation is about 1400W/m2 on average (actual 1050W/m2 with normal performance). With equatorial declination (+6% output) and horizontal tracking (+30% output) you can get even more. Also during the winter the output is down to 500W/m2 on cloudy days but it can also get to 4000W/m2 in the clear summer days.

Average:


Summer months:


Also wind conditions show an yearly average of 3m/s. Maximal winds (witnessed last week) can go up to 14m/s, and some days winds can be below 1m/s. This region is sub-optimal for wind harvesting, but with cheap and adapted designs it can still be done pretty cheap.



BombaUcigasa
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 05:27:17 PM
 #65

Check out the Rossi Catalyzer
In this thread we abide to the Laws of Thermodynamics. Sorry Smiley

On a serious note, uneducated people have a hard time figuring out what parts of an energy reactor are the actual reactor and which are the actual fuel. Examples include: Bedinni magnets, carbon-iron alloy cast hidrogen car engine, atomic nuclei...

I looked into the rossi catalyzer, and it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Whether it is a hoax or not is yet to be seen, but the underlying physics *could work. Essentially the idea is to take NiH at raised temperature and pressure and they report seeing fusion of the Ni + H to get Cu. The nuclear reaction is exothermic, so if it is what they say it is then it should produce power.

*This would require a mechanism for the proton to overcome the culombic barrier, which could be from any of these sources: 1) proton has enough energy to go over barrier; 2) quantum tunneling through barrier; or 3) lowering of the barrier by a catalyst. I have not gone over the numbers in rigorous detail, but 1 is out because at the temperatures they are running this is very unlikely. 3 is improbable because there are no other reported nuclear reaction that use a catalyst, that is restricted to purely chemical reactions. 2 is possible, more research nescessarry before making a conclusion.

Sorry to bring in chemistry/physics, but this has been bouncing around in my brain the past couple days.
I have to agree, it follows the natural laws of our Universe. The fusion of nickel with other elements into elements with lower atomic number than iron, will generate energy because it converges matter towards a lower state of entropy. It's basically what the Universe wants: only iron atoms and everything else as mass-less photons.

You are still burning "fuel", Nickel is currently $10/pound. Without an efficient method of reverting the reaction (it would absorb heat instead, thus drain energy) you can run the generator for a limited time. And you get copper as a residue, pretty cool, we need copper right?

But wait, it gets better. All the nickel in nature is already binded to other elements and is present as salts. You need to mine it, clean it up, refine it ... which surprise! requires roasting, aka heat to unbind it's atoms from the other elements and create the pure form needed for a reactor.

It's like showing an aluminum-air battery and touting it as free energy from thin air, forgetting to mention you need more energy to purify the aluminum than to spend it as a fuel.
BombaUcigasa
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:09:14 PM
 #66

You are still burning "fuel", Nickel is currently $10/pound. Without an efficient method of reverting the reaction (it would absorb heat instead, thus drain energy) you can run the generator for a limited time. And you get copper as a residue, pretty cool, we need copper right?

But wait, it gets better. All the nickel in nature is already binded to other elements and is present as salts. You need to mine it, clean it up, refine it ... which surprise! requires roasting, aka heat to unbind it's atoms from the other elements and create the pure form needed for a reactor.

It's like showing an aluminum-air battery and touting it as free energy from thin air, forgetting to mention you need more energy to purify the aluminum than to spend it as a fuel.

The net energy released can still be positive. Remember, nuclear reactions generate energies orders of magnitude greater than chemical reactions. The claim Rossi is making is that the energy he is generating is greater than the cost of refining the nickel in the reaction and producing the hydrogen. Like I said before, I am skeptical but it could work.

This is more like burning oil pumped from the ground (react a resource to release energy) than it is like a battery (release energy put into the system).

Exactly. It is cheaper now to burn nickel into copper, and there is a limited supply of nickel, and it's price will go up in time.

Still no idea why nobody could replicate it.
Desolator
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
July 16, 2011, 04:03:13 PM
 #67

I mostly just read the initial post but I'm trying to do a much smaller scale project and know quite a bit about inverters and electricity and equipment and stuff.  Possibly not more than you but maybe enough to help  Cheesy  My goal is to get a PC that runs completely on green energy that I created for as long as possible per day and have bitcoins pay for it with an initial investment of around $300 (not counting the computer).
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!