Electricity bill and when do you stop mining?

[max in montreal]

i do not see mining as a waste of energy. we are using the power to make the computer work to make us money...

[1714653529]

1714653529

[1714653529]

1714653529

[1714653529]

1714653529

[1714653529]

1714653529

[antares]

i do not see mining as a waste of energy. we are using the power to make the computer work to make us money...

Well, I guess if you go to a bank to request a loan for rig expansion and tell them exactly this, they'll probably notify the SEC about a new ponzi scheme.

Point is, the waste of energy is debatable. But energyconscient people surely see mining as the greatest waste ever. And again, there is the special place of germany, or even southern CA, where people are currently barely profitable with mining, however I didnt shut down my rigs at $3/coin either, since I dont mine for personal bargain(I have enough coins I mined at diff<10000), but to support the project.

Then again, the question to me is where do you draw the line?

People mining with FPGAs would probably say that GPU mining is a hell of energy wastage.
GPU miners would say the same about nvidia miners(yes, they exist, and modern nvidia GPUs come close to radeons, the thing is that the mining comparison table in the wiki is put up from idiots that mine on CUDA devices with radeon-optimized OpenCL miners, which are known to be between 100 and 300 % slower than the same code in CUDA on them).
And finally, NVIDIA miners would say energy waste at CPU miners.

so where would you draw the line?

[DeathAndTaxes]

GPU miners would say the same about nvidia miners(yes, they exist, and modern nvidia GPUs come close to radeons, the thing is that the mining comparison table in the wiki is put up from idiots that mine on CUDA devices with radeon-optimized OpenCL miners, which are known to be between 100 and 300 % slower than the same code in CUDA on them).

No they don't.  Show me a single Nvidia card which is (just to be sporting) within 50% of what a AMD card (your pick) can get in terms of MH/W and MH/$.

NVidia has always had lackluster integer performance CUDA or not.

[antares]

take a stock clocked GTX590 for example. it uses about 370W on full load, and with my own cuda miner, it puts about 470MH/s. with pocl it's just under 200.
given that the 590 is comparable to a 6990(price, wattage, dual-GPU), I'd say it meets your bet!

[k9quaint]

take a stock clocked GTX590 for example. it uses about 370W on full load, and with my own cuda miner, it puts about 470MH/s. with pocl it's just under 200.
given that the 590 is comparable to a 6990(price, wattage, dual-GPU), I'd say it meets your bet!

Shenanigans.
Code or it didn't happen.
And a 6990 will still smoke those numbers.

[jjshabadoo]

Revitalize the american economy AND secure our energy needs. build 20 new reactors a year while taking as many offline. While doing so, upgrade the ENTIRE electrical and IT infrastructure. This would create millions of jobs and secure our future for decades.

[antares]

Revitalize the american economy AND secure our energy needs. build 20 new reactors a year while taking as many offline. While doing so, upgrade the ENTIRE electrical and IT infrastructure. This would create millions of jobs and secure our future for decades.

would love that, but you have to see the costs too. a new reactor costs about 4 billion dollars. and lets not even start with the grid...

[jjshabadoo]

banks STOLE over 3 trillion or at least the FED did, i think that would have been an nice start.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Revitalize the american economy AND secure our energy needs. build 20 new reactors a year while taking as many offline. While doing so, upgrade the ENTIRE electrical and IT infrastructure. This would create millions of jobs and secure our future for decades.

would love that, but you have to see the costs too. a new reactor costs about 4 billion dollars. and lets not even start with the grid...

So $4B each * 20 reactors would be $80B annually.  Price likely would drop if you built 20 identical reactors year after year for a decade.  Most reactor parts are custom built on site but you could gain economies of scale by having component factories if there was certainty in future demand.  China is doing this now.  They have a factory which makes steam generators.  Giant massive components being factory built because you need 4 per reactor and China knows they will be building a couple hundred reactors.

Sure $80B is some real money but  to put it into perspective US GDP is $14,580B.  The Apollo program in today's dollars is about $170B so it isn't impossible it just requires political and social will which is currently lacking.

Imagine in a decade your could replace 104 ancient oddball reactors all custom built and no two exactly alike with 200 standardized higher efficiency, passively safe Gen III+ designs based on year 2000 technology.   In the process you could almost triple the amount of nuclear energy being produced and even accounting for electrical demand growth over that time increase nuclear's share from ~20% to almost 50%.  Over 2000 TWh.  It puts the 18 TWh "solar victory" in Germany into context.

[bulanula]

take a stock clocked GTX590 for example. it uses about 370W on full load, and with my own cuda miner, it puts about 470MH/s. with pocl it's just under 200.
given that the 590 is comparable to a 6990(price, wattage, dual-GPU), I'd say it meets your bet!

Shenanigans.
Code or it didn't happen.
And a 6990 will still smoke those numbers.

Yeah I think we can call BS on this one.

GTX 590 doing almost 500 mhash/s ? LOL

[eviltt]

2) I would rather had 500 nuclear reactors than millions of acres of high cost PV panels.

Wow, if it was up to me I would get rid of all of them...

thats because you dont under stand nuclear power, its actually one of the cleanest and safest power generation methods around.

Actually i would be willing to bet if you took even hydro electric, and looked at every damn that ever failed and the numbers of people killed by the resulting floods, or the amount of ecological damage done by flooding massive valleys you would find that its far worse than the 2 largest nuclear accidents in history... which as far as i know are the only ones to cause any kind of measurable damage to the environment. (Chernobyl, and fukushima).

some people really just dont understand how bad the other options really are.

kinda like the morons buying electric/hybrid vehicles thinking they are saving the world.  the over all cost and damage to the environment caused by the manufacture of the batteries that go into those vehicles far outweighs the costs of fuel in the lifetime of a reasonable car (especially you fucking lucky ass europeans with your great selection of diesel vehicles!)

that said.. Nuclear all the way.. fuck if they would let me i would pay to have a mini reactor put in my home.. great source of cheap, safe power

[DeathAndTaxes]

Actually i would be willing to bet if you took even hydro electric, and looked at every damn that ever failed and the numbers of people killed by the resulting floods, or the amount of ecological damage done by flooding massive valleys you would find that its far worse than the 2 largest nuclear accidents in history... which as far as i know are the only ones to cause any kind of measurable damage to the environment. (Chernobyl, and fukushima)[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

No need to guess a single hydro electric damn failure eclipses both disasters.  

The single worst disaster in the history of power generation is a hydro-electric dam failure.  The Chinese admit to 171,000 casualties, 5.9 million buildings destroyed, and 11 million displaced person but many put the estimates closer to double that.

Now to anyone reading, how many specials, documentaries, news stories, and fictional references have you seen on Chernobyl?  Had you even heard of Banqiao before today?  Think mass media not science might have something to do with "anti-nuke" movement. (BTW the term "nuke" wasn't an accident.  nuke = slang for nuclear weapons.  so use "nuke" to describe fission reactors to link images of mushroom clouds in the public's mind).

[max in montreal]

what about the leftover radiation that will be there for the next few centuries? and the radiation that spreads across the world...I think thats why I am against nuclear power. when a dam breaks people can rebuild, and there is no radiation. It does not affect the whole world. I trust that candians are taking care of their nuclear power stations, but am not as trusting with other countries, but then again what the hell do i know. all I do know is that radiation affects the world and does way more damage.

as for the question of wasting the electricity and where do you draw the line, I guess I draw my own line where I am comfortable. I am running a few gpu and would like to swap over to FPGA as soon as possible, and there are many reasons. the 2 most important is the fact that they take less power to run, and require less equipment One motherboard can have more hashing power using fpga's, than gpu's. and no need to update the home electricity.

I am not saying anybody is right or wrong, these are just my thoughts...for me.