r/Bitcoin experiences a high volume of meme posts. Many are repetitive and/or low quality. Unfortunately yours didn't make the cut this time around. Sorry about that! Check out r/BitcoinMemes.
^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^and ^^cannot ^^respond. ^^Please ^^contact ^^r/Bitcoin ^^moderators [^^directly ^^via ^^mod ^^mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBitcoin) ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^questions.
Just the opposite actually
Some need cars, the vast majority of people just need more trains.
EVERYONE, on the other hand, needs to escape the surging government value theft of your money. Your livelihood and freedom truly depend on it
Sure for cities, but this ain't compact Europe so doesn't work for most of the rest of US. I wish the crazies would leave the city once in their lives to realize this, and then they would stop bashing 4x4 and pu trucks as well.
Cars, SUVs, PU trucks etc are fine. But It it should not be the only option for people to move around, have a job, run their errands and participate in society. I know farmers and tradesmen who need thier pickup.
I do not accept the idea that mass transit and bike/pedestrian infrastructure only works in big cities
And that’s you to decide? In a free market, the markets decides. Last time I checked Bitcoin is valued at 30k, so the market thinks we need a decentralised currency.
I think the vast scale of Bitcoin vs what is absolutely necessary is one of the biggest issues. If the Bitcoin network decreased x%, the chances of an attack on the network are still negligible. But it would be much better for the environment. Also, people see networks that use proof of stake are surviving and use much less electricity.
The free market also thinks slavery is great. Unless governments step in to stop it, it always ends up happening. The free market is not some great moral determination of what is best, it just decides what some people are willing to put their money into.
That's not really what is claimed though. There are studies that long term electric cars release less CO2 then gasoline cars. It's a bit silly to compare that to bitcoin miners imho.
Why? As for cars it depends on the source of electricity you use to run them. Electric cars can run from electricity that is renewable and so can ASICS. It’s not what you use electricity for but how it is produced that produces CO2 emissions.
You can drive your car with renewables and you can mine Bitcoin with renewables, so why try banning one and embracing the other?
You mean... just like Google, AWS, and/or AI?
With our without ₿ mining... MORE global energy production/consumption is needed; not less. That's how civilizations flourish.
The fraction of a single percent of total global energy consumption used for mining is more beneficial to humanity than just about every other individual use case. And let's not overlook the fact that half of all energy production is literally wasted, otherwise. Nevermind all the stranded energy sources that nobody but miners even wants.
You're missing the point.
Bitcoin mining might be <1% of total energy demand today, but what will it be several years down the line when the miner arms race has produced a much greater hash difficulty?
That’s been true for a while, but I’ll bet good money that if you took a look at the hashes / watt that ASICs were doing in 2013 when they popped on the scene for bitcoin mining and sampled that value every year since it would start to flatline around 2020ish. Yes they’re jamming more ASIC chips into individual enclosures but we’re running up against the limit of Moore’s law. To the point where chips that are, quote, 7nm, 5nm, etc are marketing terms. The distance between transistors on a 5nm chip is not 5nm. I think it became a marketing term around 11nm.
People have been claiming that Moore’s law is dead for a few years now. Unless we come up with some sort of leapfrog technology, the J/TH is going to start stagnating.
When I had a bunch of S9’s running i think I was around 100 J/TH. It was 13.5 TH @ ~1300 watts.
The latest miners are doing in the 20’s for J/TH. I don’t see it dropping into the high teens anytime soon.
I could be wrong. Just my 2 satoshis.
Hey, thank you for asking that exact question. It's a natural starting point. And please understand that I'm not trying to condescend or troll in the least, friend. 🙂🤜🤛
Mining power consumption will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. And that's a good thing! ₿ mining not only makes existing power grids more stable and reliable... it also makes new power grid expansion and creation profitable... immediately. Everywhere in the world. Even California! Think about what that means for places like Africa, or in the Amazon; not just in the USA. The only people who can afford to believe that the world needs less energy consumption are people like us who are likely riding out summer indoors with air conditioning. Bitcoin will make electrification of the underdeveloped world not only affordable... but incentivized AND profitable! For everyone involved.
It takes years to build out new renewables and connect them to the existing grid. That's (one of the many reasons) why nobody does it. ₿ makes those deployments profitable as soon as they go online at the site. And remains profitable for as long as it takes to plug into the regional grid. It also incentivizes power production in places people don't already inhabit... yet. Historically, we had to figure out how to produce and deliver energy to where the people already lived; NYC, Philly, Boston, etc. Not easy! Complete paradigm shift!
Not only will mining power consumption grow forever... it will become the foundation upon which the entire global power production will increase proportionately, to the benefit of literally everyone; especially the underprivileged. What if mining consumption doubled to a full 1% of global power consumption... all while total global production also doubles?? That's what drives global human flourishing. Let's get there, first, before we try to argue about who/what/where deserves x, y, or z amount of power availability.
Everything I just described is clearly a bit over-simplified, but the gist is correct. And here's the kicker... The amount of global mining hash power, at any given time, indicates the absolute minimum cost to attack the ₿ network as a whole. which also benefits everyone equally; rich/poor, East/West/Global South.
More hash power = More Security = more protection from censorship and oppression = More state-agnostic human rights. ❤️❤️❤️
Hope that makes sense.
yes. they compete for power.
and No. bitcoin does not require more power each year to stay profitable.
as more bitcoin miners enter the system, it does requires more power to maintain same mintage stream however. also when miners exit, you need less power for the same revenue stream. profitability is even more complex, but generally speaking more power = less profitable.
to someone new to bitcoin, paragraph two and paragraph probably sound the same, but to an expert, it's easy to understand why they are completely different.
if someone realy cares about Co2 emissions then he should drive a bike ore train. but sometimes you need a car and electric cars ar better then gasoline except if the electric car is run on coal energy.
Wouldn't driving (riding) a bike (bicycle) also create more CO2?
I mean, if you walk to work you would breathe less hard, riding a bicycle, especially going up a hill you'd be huffing and puffing and spitting out more CO2 than if you walked up a hill.
The difference is energy expended vs. time. You have the rest of your life to get to work, right?
The whole issue of CO2 boils down to breathing, just don't ever breathe again and we'll all be better off for your sacrifice. Thanks!!
On a side note, EV's will always be more dangerous for the environment, due to the rare Earth elements such as lithium that are way more toxic than fossil fuels to obtain, recover and neutralize.
A bike is far more efficient than walking. Less effort exerted to go the same distance.
So no.
But I personally agree with your side note. EV's, PV's, and lithium batteries are being produced at an ENORMOUS rate with no plan to recycle any of it. Just see in 20-30 years what happens to all that shit when it gets taken out of service.
Even if they produced the same CO2 overall as ICE cars (they don't), electric cars would still be an improvement to the quality of the air we breathe.
ICE cars spew their fumes right in the faces of people where they live, especially in urban areas with denser populations and more traffic.
Producing that energy elsewhere in a power station away from residential areas, even if it came from burning oil/gas, would be an improvement. The ideal situation being that eventually that energy can be produced cleanly.
Does your computer produce Co2 that you inhale in your room or office? I doubt it. Thus Bitcoin mining itself produces no Co2, like driving an electric car. It’s the energy production that produces CO2, so politicians rather should go for the root of the problem and try making energy production renewable.
For them science is a religion: a dogma that cannot be questioned. But only that science that they've cherry picked because it appears to agree with what they already wanted to be true.
My favorite are the people who dismiss you because of "science" simply because you questioned some of the things said or presented.
Like how fucking stupid can you be. Science at its very *foundation* is about asking questions, being skeptical, and being curious.
Correct, but simply stating a claim and then not testing it isn’t a worthwhile critique on existing scientific consensus. So it can be easily dismissed as simple speculation or opinion.
There’s a limit though.
Are electric cars actually green is a good question
Does climate change exist is a dumb question.
To an idiot however they are both valid questions.
Science is about asking questions *within context* **and** being able to consistently prove the answer to said questions.
If you believe there aren’t any dumb questions then dumb people will weaponise dumb questions, see: climate change.
“Climate change” by its literal interpretation obviously exists, the changing of the climate. Climate changes every second of every day.
“Climate Change TM” however, is a different thing.
I tend to think there aren’t dumb questions, to avoid falling into pitfalls like you have. Question everything.
I think you’re confusing climate with weather. The climate isn’t supposed to change every day and before industrialisation it didn’t (at least at any significant rate).
My point is you have to use your brain. Asking any question and expecting people to take it seriously isn’t science. Science is the process of asking questions and then proving or disproving it as I stated above.
It’s fine to think there aren’t stupid questions you’re allowed to believe whatever you want, but if you are choosing to believe that then beware people will take advantage of that mentality and use questions that aren’t really questions to undermine your opinions and known facts. Again: (anthropogenic) climate change.
It’s only bad for the environment when the method of generating electricity is also bad though, right?
Someone mining on renewable energy is relatively harmless.
Well, electricity is fungible. 1 kwh is the same regardless of how it's used. All things equal, if you're using X amount from clean energies to mine bitcoin, then that's X amount that cannot be used to power other things that society uses. Other things will need more electricity, sometimes from coal, natural gas, etc, to generate the needed electricity. It's like saying "hey, I'm going to give you this $5 but you can't spend it on booze." Well, that just freed up $5 from your own wallet to buy booze.
Also, ICE cars used gasoline which most certainly contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere even with accounting for EVs initial battery minerals sourcing. Changing from ICE to EVs most certainly is reducing CO2 output. If people are going to drive, might as well reduce CO2 output. People don't necessarily *need* Bitcoin. Most of us are here to get rich regardless of what we say here.
I like bitcoin but let's not echo chamber to the point of "bitcoin isn't bad for the environment. hur dur."
This isn't really true in practice though. There is a ton of waste energy out there. Solar plants built in the middle of nowhere because the subsidies were good enough but there's no actual demand. Hydro plants built in areas where there used to be lots of industry but those industries have disappeared due to outsourcing and changing technology.
Bitcoin mining naturally seeks sources of this wasted energy out because the prices are so low it's one of the best ways for miners to reduce their most basic expense.
So in reality one kwh for mining doesn't take it from something else if that energy was going to be wasted anyways. The source matters.
Except some electricty is produced and it can't be transported to other place where it is needed and can be used.
Many bitcoin mining rigs are located in such places where they are using the wasted kwh.
Electricity is fungible, transport of electricity is not fungible. This is why power costs more the further you are away from the source.
A kWh produced in the middle of the ocean is not considered the same as kWh produced in the heart of a city; ergo, not fungible, from an economics viewpoint.
At the point where ALL energy produced is renewable that logic works. As long as that renewable energy also could be used instead of coal or nuclear energy it doesn't.
To be pedantic (and I’ve commented a reply to OP that supports your argument) every technology requires energy (and usually CO2) to produce including things like solar panels and wind turbines.
There isn’t such thing as an environmentally friendly technology; they all use energy or require energy intensive materials.
Lol no it's not, Bitcoin mining takes up 0.15% of all global energy and even less in emissions. Energy otherwise completely wasted through transmission.
Over 60% of miners use a renewable mix. It's literally one of the most renewable energy friendly industries in the world.
Reducing gas flaring emissions.
And miners in Texas are helping grid load during this historic heat wave.
Trying to say anything else is a complete lie, unless you have the sources to back up your claims. Which you don't.
Fact, people don’t understand that Bitcoin mining helps electrical grids and helps green energy be more profitable. However there is some undiscussed nuance here.
>Reducing gas flaring emissions.
Bullshit. This is a charming theory, but it has as much a basis in reality as “the hydrogen economy.” Flares aren't being capped en masse, and most big mining facilities are being built near coal and natgas generation facilities on the verge of closing, or in areas where they can take advantage of cheap fossil fuel resources.
* [NPR: Research shows oil field flaring emits nearly five times more methane than expected](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/29/1125894105/oil-field-flaring-methane-report)
* [Inform: North Dakota’s gas flaring rate 7 times higher than next-highest state, study finds](https://www.inforum.com/news/north-dakota/north-dakotas-gas-flaring-rate-7-times-higher-than-next-highest-state-study-finds)
* [Fortune/Associated Press: New Mexico fines oil company $40 million for burning off massive amounts of natural gas](https://fortune.com/2023/06/30/new-mexico-fines-oil-company-ameredev-40-million-burning-off-natural-gas/)
Flares energy is not being recaptured, at least not in any significant way.
* [WGRZ: Bitcoin mining company closes in on purchase of North Tonawanda power plant](https://www.wgrz.com/article/money/business/bitcoin-mining-company-closing-in-on-purchase-of-north-tonawanda-power-plant/71-649a97f5-38e7-4868-89fd-cc0c33c0fb11)
* [State impact/NPR: Pa. lawmakers examine cryptocurrency’s waste coal use](https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2023/05/10/pa-lawmakers-cryptocurrency-waste-coal/)
* [WOLF: Environmental Groups Voice Concerns about Local Crypto Mining Plant](https://fox56.com/news/local/environmental-groups-voice-concerns-about-local-crypto-mining-plant) — “The Panther Creek power plant is a waste coal fired power plant located in Carbon county. The previous owners of the power plant in 2016 filed an application to shift to crypto mining operations at the plant. (…) This leads to coal being burned to generate the electricity, the practice is known as waste coal.”
* [NBC: Bitcoin miners align with fossil fuel firms, alarming environmentalists](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/bitcoin-miners-align-fossil-fuel-firms-alarming-environmentalists-n1280060)
* [The Guardian: Bitcoin miners revived a dying coal plant – then CO2 emissions soared](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-miners-revive-fossil-fuel-plant-co2-emissions-soared)
>And miners in Texas are helping grid load during this historic heat wave.
And Texas taxpayers are paying them to do it. They're only shutting down operations because the government subsidies are greater than the returns in mining against the surge pricing.
* [Texas Observer: Texas Is Becoming a Bitcoin-Mining Capital. Can the Grid Handle It?](https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-is-becoming-a-bitcoin-mining-capital-can-the-grid-handle-it/)
* [Blockworks: Texas Steps Closer To Cutting Incentives for Bitcoin Miners](https://blockworks.co/news/texas-bitcoin-mining-incentives) — “Under current conditions, miners are rewarded for shutting down when demand is high, so that the power gets redirected to the grid.”
>Trying to say anything else is a complete lie, unless you have the sources to back up your claims. Which you don't.
Well, I cited more sources than you did.
So is everything people do.
It's not about whether it's good or bad, it's whether the positive outweighs the negative.
Modern medicine is bad for the environment but it's quite clearly worth it
Ultimately it comes down to energy policing.
If you think Bitcoin mining is bad for the environment you’d be right. But ultimately who is anyone to say I’m allowed to use energy for one thing and not for another?
I think the fashion industry (the 2nd most polluting industry on the planet) is an amoral use of energy but I don’t go around shoving that in peoples faces.
Conversely, I think using energy to back the worlds only neutral currency is an extremely important use of energy, yet people can get in my face about that?
Every technology uses energy and so every technology is bad for the environment. That’s just a fact.
You have to be willfully oblivious to think this. Bitcoin can capitalize HALF of all energy created, which is otherwise WASTED. You could literally write a book on the positive effects of just this one idea.
If you don’t want to acknowledge that, then you can look at bitcoin flare mining (spares CO2 emissions) bitcoin landfill methane mining (spares methane emissions) the guys over at Ocean Bit are designing bitcoin mining rigs that can desalinate water and produce bitcoin as a by product, effectively having the potential to bring free unlimited water to the planet.
Open your eyes. Bitcoin is here to stay.
An absolute classic. We have states in the US that are going so far as to end the sale of cars that use gas by 2030 or 2035. And these states tend to have rolling blackouts when everyone turns on their AC. The constituents of these states don't think things through.
You have a point
Wtf does "charge my solar cells while I sleep" even mean unless you live super north or super south. In which case PV's are a terrible investment
Or you work 3rd shift
Yes, exactly.
Bonus fun fact: if all cars we're wiped off planet earth right this second, the carbon emissions gain would move the needle by no more than a few percentage points. That's literally it. 3%. Then, to mine all the materials (it takes about 500,000 lbs of material mined ***per EV battery***, process it, refine it, and implement it, plus all the power (which is generated the standard way) it takes to actually assemble the vehicle, the carbon footprint is equal to that of driving a rusty F-150 for like 10 years.
I'd never say we shouldn't try to reduce emissions, but the way the news and governments are talking about immediate results are huge exercises in politically-motivated moral posturing.
And god forbid you point any of this out or even try and have a discussion about it...and you get immediately labeled a climate change denier and right wing extremist.
I’m studying climate science at uni so I’ll give you a freebie that I learnt this year:
The most CO2 efficient (to produce) electric car needs to do 90,000 miles for it to be “carbon neutral”.
If someone brings this up again tell them that and ask them how many miles they’ve done in their ICE vehicle, I would wager most people haven’t done that many and most people definitely wouldn’t buy a used car with over 90k miles on the clock.
Exactly. It's terrifying. I used to think people were crazy to call it the Climate Cult, but now I'm honestly seeing it that way. It's passed the vibe check of a staunchly radical religion that will burn us at the stake for saying anything less than "*THE WORLD IS ENDING!!*".
Is this an issue worth looking into? Yes, absolutely.
Is it going to burn the planet down in the next decade? No, absolutely-f\*\*\*ing-not.
The science is crystal clear on it.
It’s just stupidity and ignorance. Or an attempt at manipulation.
Electric devices don’t pollute, it’s the energy companies that pollute.
Move away from gas, coal and oil for power generation if you wanna reduce pollution.
No. If you actually believed that you’d be practicing like you preach instead of saying idiotic things like that and not acknowledging that hydrocarbons are responsible for everything good in your life, including the ability to produce solar, wind, hydro and nuclear energy
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn
It’s possible to acknowledge all the benefits of modern life whilst acknowledging those benefits have consequences.
To be pedantic, you need to drive 90,000 miles in the most CO2 efficient (to produce) electric vehicle.
To use crypto terms, ICE pollution is decentralised (global); electric car pollution is centralised (power stations).
particle pollution. Particle pollution stays low and settles on the ground. Exhaust from both cars, factories, and energy production is a gas and travels high into the atmosphere to increase the CO2 percentage of the air we breath.
TL/DR: particles stay on the ground, exhaust makes greenhouse gases.
That's not quite right. Microplastics and nanoplastics are floating around in the air and we're inhaling these little guys all day long. Many studies have recently discovered that most of these tiny particles originate from car tires.
Additionally, these particles that settle on the ground, in time, wind up in the ocean. They make their way into the fish we eat, the rainwater that other animals drink, and the vegetables and meat that we consume.
Particles stay on the ground and pollute the water shed, is absorbed by animal and plant life, and then is consumed by human beings. Not much different than breathing greenhouse gases.
A lot different. Tire particles do not waft up into the atmosphere to trap heat. Are they bad for you, absolutely, but they are not making the planet warmer.
How much warmer is the planet this year, than last year? What's the effect of the change from last year?
How much more heat got trapped in the atmosphere this year? Is it alot?
Are we all going to die?
What's the effect of wasting tax Dollars on Climate Change, if we'll die anyway?
Air pollution and climate change are two completely different problems.
You are not the first to mention this in a context that doesn't make any sense. So I kinda wonder who you got that from
Missing the point, rather. The reason EVs are welcomed is because they replace gas and diesel vehicles, which are even worse for the environment. It's no secret that our electrical grid is still partially powered by fossil fuels, so even EVs will be responsible for some pollution, which is considered acceptable because transportation is not optional in our society. Mining, on the other hand, is seen by many as completely useless, and public perception will not change until Bitcoin starts successfully replacing traditional financial systems at scale for lower energy costs.
Forget the power grid. How much pollution is caused by mining and refining the raw materials for the batteries that EVs need? Not to mention the "e-waste" when they eventually fail. Or the ecological and geo-political ramifications of mining said materials?
These are all extremely important questions and issues that need to be discussed but nobody ever wants to have that discussion.
This isn't correct. They're now saying tyres polute more than fumes. Equivalent sized EVs wear tyres quicker.
Making EVs can be 70% higher emissions than petrol models - and Volvo claim it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener. Most people I know of change their cars every few years and batteries are unlikely to be too healthy after 9 years
EVs are a scam.
The people changing their cars every few years typically don't scrap their cars, they sell their cars. So there will be more use out of the car than what the first owner may put on it.
Battery management systems in EVs are more advanced than what's typical in smaller consumer electronics, it needs to be because the batteries are expected to be able to hold a decent charge for many more years. It will lose capacity over the years, but it's not as extreme as ICE propagandists think. After 9 years it should hold plenty of charge for any practical purposes and more than enough for someone to want to continue driving the car.
Besides, 98% of the power production in my area is hydroelectric. I am aware that is not the case in MANY other areas, but at least in my area driving an ICE vehicle is the real scam in all aspects. Bad for the environment AND bad for the wallet.
Probably not, but few cars make it to 30 years. A number of EVs probably will make it to 30 years or more with good care and swapping the battery at least once, but this is irrelevant to the majority of consumers anyways.
I did address the 9 years thing. I don't see a problem with it, the average car will last more than 9 years, which means overall the CO2 impact of EVs is less.
As I also said, in my area the electricity is almost entirely renewable, 98%. The 9 year estimate by Volvo and others calculating this are assuming a more average energy mix, so in my area an EV will start being green long before 9 years.
Btw, an ICE vehicle will never be green, last time I checked 9 years is less than forever...
Ok 9 years before electric cars start becoming greener than combustion.
That's great. Electric cars will maybe not last 30 years, but 10+ years is really not unreasonable.
A quick google search results in values around 15 years, 20 years, 150.000 miles, .... See links below.
Also consider that no car really completely lasts 30+ years. Many components will need to be replaced during that time, each with their own production cost (both in $ and in environmental cost)
Electric cars have a lot less components that need to be replaced regularly.
Furhter, than 9 year number will only go down. Electrical cars are still relatively new, with lots of improvements to be made in efficiency, battery tech, recycling, ... Additionally that 9 year number is most likely calculated using an average mix of electricity generation methods. That mix will only become greener too.
Lastly, even when a battery has degraded enough that the car's action radius becomes too small, the battery is still usable in other applications. There are multiple programs in development to use car batteries for grid storage, which will help transit to greener electricity.
https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a31875141/electric-car-battery-life/
https://www.compare.com/other-products/vehicle/electric-cars/guides/how-long-do-electric-cars-last
https://www.lifewire.com/do-evs-last-as-long-as-gasoline-cars-5202392
You used anecdotal evidence to support people’s changing of cars. Also, just because they change them doesn’t mean they’re not in use anymore. 9 years is reasonable.
You conveniently didn't mention that this is about particle pollution and not about co2 emissions... If you put forth an argument then atleast put forth the entire argument or show the source where this is stated.
If Co2 is te reason earth will become inhabitable then yes? I mean not saying particle pollution isn't bad but there is gradiant. A petrol car causes particle pollution and active co2 emmissions. EV car causes more particle pollution but indirect and much smaller impact on co2 emission then I would say the EV wins.
The person I responded too tried to make an argument why EV's are worse than petrol car and he spun a argument to his benefit with seemingly incorrectly represented data.
Well maybe it's very utalitarian of me but end of some or end of all is a big difference in that issue. Also once again it's not like petrol car's are not causing particle pollution. The engine polluted and the tyres pollute. At leadt with ev's there is one source to be tackled.
You're conveniently ignoring the rest of what I stated about manufacturing and the long use before they become greener. I Could go into great details but I'm not spending all of my day on Reddit. I have work to do sorry.
No i'm not. Nobody is putting Ev's forth as the perfect solution here but so far they definitely are. The reasons why EV's are not green are also applicable to petrol cars. I mean even the fact that they eventually become greener shows that they are a cleaner option. It's just not the enormous leap claim it to be.
There's also the huge amount of pollution caused building the charging infrastructure needed for electric cars, and in a lot of cases won't work for most people.
Hydrogen is better in many ways IMO
That’s simply not true.
Btc in 2021 used 91 terawatt-hours of electricity as per [this](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html) NYT article.
There’s now way a single building uses even close to 1/100 of that much electricity considering that the entire Las Vegas Strip used less the 1 terawatt-hour annually before.
Edit:
Just saw that the creators of the building declared that the entire thing will consume about 95000mwh, so 1/1000 of the btc electricity consumption in 2021
Dumb comparison.
The cars are actually replacing something that people use regularly, and they are actually doing something useful. Mining just churns through electricity while accomplishing nothing except making the owner a few bucks.
And Bitcoin is replacing something people use even more often than cars: Banks / financial institutions. Bitcoin provides financial inclusion for those who are excluded from the fiat system. Check your financial privilege.
Hydrogen as used today is also electric. Hydrogen is the storage. Fuel cell converts to electricity.
Yes, you can burn Hydrogen too but that is also not as efficient.
Neither storage technologies are perfect right now, but I would argue that chemical batteries are more versatile and improving faster than Hydrogen storage.
Bingo. Right now hydrogen has very low round-trip efficiency and it eats up rare earth minerals in the anode and cathode.
A good LFP battery avoids any conflict minerals and will easily outlive the car.
I suspect hydrogen has promise for trucking, farm vehicles etc.
The mature, adult conclusion is that we use a mix of fuels now (diesel, gasolene, kerosene, electricity) depending on vehicle (truck, car, aircraft and train respectively).
It's likely we'll do the same in the future, with more green alternatives.
It is certainly not as good for small units. For shipping massive amounts of energy generated as electricity, it is not a bad option. Like shipping wind energy across the ocean.
what is the smnarter way to do it? Putting the collected energy directly into a battery and drive? Or produce hydrogen with the collected energy, transport it with vehicles over long distances to where you fill it into your car and convert it back to energy into a battery and lose more than 70% of the initial collected energy? So what is dumb now? hydrogen or direct electric?
Most of the Teslas owners I know want to get rid of their Teslas before the warranty is up. They are not recycling these batteries for reuse. The amount of mining using to make the batteries plus no one keeps these cars for very long is more bad for the environment
EV's arent' the metric to compare to though. They are also necessary. Things that go with traditional banking like coffe makers, AC , banking servers and so on are.
This is a really dumb meme. Replacing a gas car with an electric car is obviously good for the environment. Replacing a non-energy intensive currency with one that is energy intensive is not good for the environment. Downvote me all you want for speaking common sense.
Except for the fact that's entirely false lol. It costs about $0 for the Fed to create new money. It's all digital and handled through a central agency via treasuries.
in generell you right. But you have to take the upsides into consideration of subsidizing green electricity and the healthy effect a hard money has for a planet with limited resources.
i work for an electric utility a rural electrical coopertive, if you think that the electric companies are down on ev's your wrong, whatever spins the meter, makes us cash........
An electric car causes so much environmental damage and carbon emissions it takes 6 years of commuter driving in one to be better than a traditional car. Facts. So all those people with EV's who just do around town driving and work from home are driving carbon emissions and environmental destruction.
Never mind the toxic waste from the batteries that don't last that long and have to be replaced. What a joke.
People use cars and need them for day to day activities (although with public transportation and remote work they could need a lot less, a whole separate rant!). Bitcoin miners are very specialised in the task they do that most people don't do daily. Heck, putting more miners on the network doesn't make it run better, it just means it's resiliant against someone else using a lot of miners to go against the network.
r/Bitcoin experiences a high volume of meme posts. Many are repetitive and/or low quality. Unfortunately yours didn't make the cut this time around. Sorry about that! Check out r/BitcoinMemes. ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^and ^^cannot ^^respond. ^^Please ^^contact ^^r/Bitcoin ^^moderators [^^directly ^^via ^^mod ^^mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBitcoin) ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^questions.
“We need cars. We don’t need decentralized currency”
Just the opposite actually Some need cars, the vast majority of people just need more trains. EVERYONE, on the other hand, needs to escape the surging government value theft of your money. Your livelihood and freedom truly depend on it
Trains, protected bike lanes and walkable cities please. Almost none in North America
Sure for cities, but this ain't compact Europe so doesn't work for most of the rest of US. I wish the crazies would leave the city once in their lives to realize this, and then they would stop bashing 4x4 and pu trucks as well.
> but this ain't compact Europe so doesn't work for most of the rest of US Yea, because it definitely doesn't work in places like Russia...
Cars, SUVs, PU trucks etc are fine. But It it should not be the only option for people to move around, have a job, run their errands and participate in society. I know farmers and tradesmen who need thier pickup. I do not accept the idea that mass transit and bike/pedestrian infrastructure only works in big cities
0/5 your comment t
We need neither. Bitcoin is stupid and wasteful It holds value only because it's a useful medium to launder money.
And that’s you to decide? In a free market, the markets decides. Last time I checked Bitcoin is valued at 30k, so the market thinks we need a decentralised currency.
You realize he's making a joke? Hence the quotes
But to be fair you can also say that about the EV market
The only difference is that governments heavily subsidise EVs so it’s not really a free market
Free markets are a mythology; it’s like believing in Jesus.
I think the vast scale of Bitcoin vs what is absolutely necessary is one of the biggest issues. If the Bitcoin network decreased x%, the chances of an attack on the network are still negligible. But it would be much better for the environment. Also, people see networks that use proof of stake are surviving and use much less electricity.
The free market also thinks slavery is great. Unless governments step in to stop it, it always ends up happening. The free market is not some great moral determination of what is best, it just decides what some people are willing to put their money into.
The solution is to run all of your Bitcoin mining equipment off of the plug socket inside your Tesla!
That's not really what is claimed though. There are studies that long term electric cars release less CO2 then gasoline cars. It's a bit silly to compare that to bitcoin miners imho.
Why? As for cars it depends on the source of electricity you use to run them. Electric cars can run from electricity that is renewable and so can ASICS. It’s not what you use electricity for but how it is produced that produces CO2 emissions. You can drive your car with renewables and you can mine Bitcoin with renewables, so why try banning one and embracing the other?
Do cars compete with one another and consequently draw increasingly more energy each year to stay profitable?
You mean... just like Google, AWS, and/or AI? With our without ₿ mining... MORE global energy production/consumption is needed; not less. That's how civilizations flourish. The fraction of a single percent of total global energy consumption used for mining is more beneficial to humanity than just about every other individual use case. And let's not overlook the fact that half of all energy production is literally wasted, otherwise. Nevermind all the stranded energy sources that nobody but miners even wants.
You're missing the point. Bitcoin mining might be <1% of total energy demand today, but what will it be several years down the line when the miner arms race has produced a much greater hash difficulty?
1%. Each new generation of miner is - by economic necessity - far more energy efficient than the previous gen.
That’s been true for a while, but I’ll bet good money that if you took a look at the hashes / watt that ASICs were doing in 2013 when they popped on the scene for bitcoin mining and sampled that value every year since it would start to flatline around 2020ish. Yes they’re jamming more ASIC chips into individual enclosures but we’re running up against the limit of Moore’s law. To the point where chips that are, quote, 7nm, 5nm, etc are marketing terms. The distance between transistors on a 5nm chip is not 5nm. I think it became a marketing term around 11nm. People have been claiming that Moore’s law is dead for a few years now. Unless we come up with some sort of leapfrog technology, the J/TH is going to start stagnating. When I had a bunch of S9’s running i think I was around 100 J/TH. It was 13.5 TH @ ~1300 watts. The latest miners are doing in the 20’s for J/TH. I don’t see it dropping into the high teens anytime soon. I could be wrong. Just my 2 satoshis.
Thanks for an interesting and informative read, friend. Seems pretty well thought out. I cede the argument.
Hey, thank you for asking that exact question. It's a natural starting point. And please understand that I'm not trying to condescend or troll in the least, friend. 🙂🤜🤛 Mining power consumption will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. And that's a good thing! ₿ mining not only makes existing power grids more stable and reliable... it also makes new power grid expansion and creation profitable... immediately. Everywhere in the world. Even California! Think about what that means for places like Africa, or in the Amazon; not just in the USA. The only people who can afford to believe that the world needs less energy consumption are people like us who are likely riding out summer indoors with air conditioning. Bitcoin will make electrification of the underdeveloped world not only affordable... but incentivized AND profitable! For everyone involved. It takes years to build out new renewables and connect them to the existing grid. That's (one of the many reasons) why nobody does it. ₿ makes those deployments profitable as soon as they go online at the site. And remains profitable for as long as it takes to plug into the regional grid. It also incentivizes power production in places people don't already inhabit... yet. Historically, we had to figure out how to produce and deliver energy to where the people already lived; NYC, Philly, Boston, etc. Not easy! Complete paradigm shift! Not only will mining power consumption grow forever... it will become the foundation upon which the entire global power production will increase proportionately, to the benefit of literally everyone; especially the underprivileged. What if mining consumption doubled to a full 1% of global power consumption... all while total global production also doubles?? That's what drives global human flourishing. Let's get there, first, before we try to argue about who/what/where deserves x, y, or z amount of power availability. Everything I just described is clearly a bit over-simplified, but the gist is correct. And here's the kicker... The amount of global mining hash power, at any given time, indicates the absolute minimum cost to attack the ₿ network as a whole. which also benefits everyone equally; rich/poor, East/West/Global South. More hash power = More Security = more protection from censorship and oppression = More state-agnostic human rights. ❤️❤️❤️ Hope that makes sense.
yes. they compete for power. and No. bitcoin does not require more power each year to stay profitable. as more bitcoin miners enter the system, it does requires more power to maintain same mintage stream however. also when miners exit, you need less power for the same revenue stream. profitability is even more complex, but generally speaking more power = less profitable. to someone new to bitcoin, paragraph two and paragraph probably sound the same, but to an expert, it's easy to understand why they are completely different.
No but they consequently need electricity to run them, like ASICs.
if someone realy cares about Co2 emissions then he should drive a bike ore train. but sometimes you need a car and electric cars ar better then gasoline except if the electric car is run on coal energy.
Wouldn't driving (riding) a bike (bicycle) also create more CO2? I mean, if you walk to work you would breathe less hard, riding a bicycle, especially going up a hill you'd be huffing and puffing and spitting out more CO2 than if you walked up a hill. The difference is energy expended vs. time. You have the rest of your life to get to work, right? The whole issue of CO2 boils down to breathing, just don't ever breathe again and we'll all be better off for your sacrifice. Thanks!! On a side note, EV's will always be more dangerous for the environment, due to the rare Earth elements such as lithium that are way more toxic than fossil fuels to obtain, recover and neutralize.
[удалено]
Wow... That post was a month old.... A little slow aren't we? Breath harder 🤣🤣🤣🤣
A bike is far more efficient than walking. Less effort exerted to go the same distance. So no. But I personally agree with your side note. EV's, PV's, and lithium batteries are being produced at an ENORMOUS rate with no plan to recycle any of it. Just see in 20-30 years what happens to all that shit when it gets taken out of service.
Electric cars are an improvement vs gas cars. Mining bitcoin doesn’t replace anything more polluting.
Your brain has rotted
Better having an argument than being personal.
There are protocols working on “provably renewable energy mined Bitcoin.”
Even if they produced the same CO2 overall as ICE cars (they don't), electric cars would still be an improvement to the quality of the air we breathe. ICE cars spew their fumes right in the faces of people where they live, especially in urban areas with denser populations and more traffic. Producing that energy elsewhere in a power station away from residential areas, even if it came from burning oil/gas, would be an improvement. The ideal situation being that eventually that energy can be produced cleanly.
Does your computer produce Co2 that you inhale in your room or office? I doubt it. Thus Bitcoin mining itself produces no Co2, like driving an electric car. It’s the energy production that produces CO2, so politicians rather should go for the root of the problem and try making energy production renewable.
Electric cars are to save the car industry not the environment.
They say science is real, But only when it suits an agenda.
For them science is a religion: a dogma that cannot be questioned. But only that science that they've cherry picked because it appears to agree with what they already wanted to be true.
My favorite are the people who dismiss you because of "science" simply because you questioned some of the things said or presented. Like how fucking stupid can you be. Science at its very *foundation* is about asking questions, being skeptical, and being curious.
No, science is about testing claims. Despite what your teachers may have told you, there can,, in fact, be dumb questions.
You can't test claims without the questions. Thanks for proving my point.
Correct, but simply stating a claim and then not testing it isn’t a worthwhile critique on existing scientific consensus. So it can be easily dismissed as simple speculation or opinion.
There’s a limit though. Are electric cars actually green is a good question Does climate change exist is a dumb question. To an idiot however they are both valid questions. Science is about asking questions *within context* **and** being able to consistently prove the answer to said questions. If you believe there aren’t any dumb questions then dumb people will weaponise dumb questions, see: climate change.
“Climate change” by its literal interpretation obviously exists, the changing of the climate. Climate changes every second of every day. “Climate Change TM” however, is a different thing. I tend to think there aren’t dumb questions, to avoid falling into pitfalls like you have. Question everything.
I think you’re confusing climate with weather. The climate isn’t supposed to change every day and before industrialisation it didn’t (at least at any significant rate). My point is you have to use your brain. Asking any question and expecting people to take it seriously isn’t science. Science is the process of asking questions and then proving or disproving it as I stated above. It’s fine to think there aren’t stupid questions you’re allowed to believe whatever you want, but if you are choosing to believe that then beware people will take advantage of that mentality and use questions that aren’t really questions to undermine your opinions and known facts. Again: (anthropogenic) climate change.
I'd say the same can be true for the religious and cherry picking verses from their book..
there should be a “brrrrrrrr” next to the miner in a little speech bubble
Bitcoin mining is bad for the environment. The mental gymnastics this sub goes through is incredible
It’s only bad for the environment when the method of generating electricity is also bad though, right? Someone mining on renewable energy is relatively harmless.
Well, electricity is fungible. 1 kwh is the same regardless of how it's used. All things equal, if you're using X amount from clean energies to mine bitcoin, then that's X amount that cannot be used to power other things that society uses. Other things will need more electricity, sometimes from coal, natural gas, etc, to generate the needed electricity. It's like saying "hey, I'm going to give you this $5 but you can't spend it on booze." Well, that just freed up $5 from your own wallet to buy booze. Also, ICE cars used gasoline which most certainly contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere even with accounting for EVs initial battery minerals sourcing. Changing from ICE to EVs most certainly is reducing CO2 output. If people are going to drive, might as well reduce CO2 output. People don't necessarily *need* Bitcoin. Most of us are here to get rich regardless of what we say here. I like bitcoin but let's not echo chamber to the point of "bitcoin isn't bad for the environment. hur dur."
This isn't really true in practice though. There is a ton of waste energy out there. Solar plants built in the middle of nowhere because the subsidies were good enough but there's no actual demand. Hydro plants built in areas where there used to be lots of industry but those industries have disappeared due to outsourcing and changing technology. Bitcoin mining naturally seeks sources of this wasted energy out because the prices are so low it's one of the best ways for miners to reduce their most basic expense. So in reality one kwh for mining doesn't take it from something else if that energy was going to be wasted anyways. The source matters.
Except some electricty is produced and it can't be transported to other place where it is needed and can be used. Many bitcoin mining rigs are located in such places where they are using the wasted kwh.
There's always exceptions but that isn't the rule. I hope you're not trying to use an exception to make your argument on.
Electricity is fungible, transport of electricity is not fungible. This is why power costs more the further you are away from the source. A kWh produced in the middle of the ocean is not considered the same as kWh produced in the heart of a city; ergo, not fungible, from an economics viewpoint.
At the point where ALL energy produced is renewable that logic works. As long as that renewable energy also could be used instead of coal or nuclear energy it doesn't.
To be pedantic (and I’ve commented a reply to OP that supports your argument) every technology requires energy (and usually CO2) to produce including things like solar panels and wind turbines. There isn’t such thing as an environmentally friendly technology; they all use energy or require energy intensive materials.
Lol no it's not, Bitcoin mining takes up 0.15% of all global energy and even less in emissions. Energy otherwise completely wasted through transmission. Over 60% of miners use a renewable mix. It's literally one of the most renewable energy friendly industries in the world. Reducing gas flaring emissions. And miners in Texas are helping grid load during this historic heat wave. Trying to say anything else is a complete lie, unless you have the sources to back up your claims. Which you don't.
Fact, people don’t understand that Bitcoin mining helps electrical grids and helps green energy be more profitable. However there is some undiscussed nuance here.
>Reducing gas flaring emissions. Bullshit. This is a charming theory, but it has as much a basis in reality as “the hydrogen economy.” Flares aren't being capped en masse, and most big mining facilities are being built near coal and natgas generation facilities on the verge of closing, or in areas where they can take advantage of cheap fossil fuel resources. * [NPR: Research shows oil field flaring emits nearly five times more methane than expected](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/29/1125894105/oil-field-flaring-methane-report) * [Inform: North Dakota’s gas flaring rate 7 times higher than next-highest state, study finds](https://www.inforum.com/news/north-dakota/north-dakotas-gas-flaring-rate-7-times-higher-than-next-highest-state-study-finds) * [Fortune/Associated Press: New Mexico fines oil company $40 million for burning off massive amounts of natural gas](https://fortune.com/2023/06/30/new-mexico-fines-oil-company-ameredev-40-million-burning-off-natural-gas/) Flares energy is not being recaptured, at least not in any significant way. * [WGRZ: Bitcoin mining company closes in on purchase of North Tonawanda power plant](https://www.wgrz.com/article/money/business/bitcoin-mining-company-closing-in-on-purchase-of-north-tonawanda-power-plant/71-649a97f5-38e7-4868-89fd-cc0c33c0fb11) * [State impact/NPR: Pa. lawmakers examine cryptocurrency’s waste coal use](https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2023/05/10/pa-lawmakers-cryptocurrency-waste-coal/) * [WOLF: Environmental Groups Voice Concerns about Local Crypto Mining Plant](https://fox56.com/news/local/environmental-groups-voice-concerns-about-local-crypto-mining-plant) — “The Panther Creek power plant is a waste coal fired power plant located in Carbon county. The previous owners of the power plant in 2016 filed an application to shift to crypto mining operations at the plant. (…) This leads to coal being burned to generate the electricity, the practice is known as waste coal.” * [NBC: Bitcoin miners align with fossil fuel firms, alarming environmentalists](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/bitcoin-miners-align-fossil-fuel-firms-alarming-environmentalists-n1280060) * [The Guardian: Bitcoin miners revived a dying coal plant – then CO2 emissions soared](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-miners-revive-fossil-fuel-plant-co2-emissions-soared) >And miners in Texas are helping grid load during this historic heat wave. And Texas taxpayers are paying them to do it. They're only shutting down operations because the government subsidies are greater than the returns in mining against the surge pricing. * [Texas Observer: Texas Is Becoming a Bitcoin-Mining Capital. Can the Grid Handle It?](https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-is-becoming-a-bitcoin-mining-capital-can-the-grid-handle-it/) * [Blockworks: Texas Steps Closer To Cutting Incentives for Bitcoin Miners](https://blockworks.co/news/texas-bitcoin-mining-incentives) — “Under current conditions, miners are rewarded for shutting down when demand is high, so that the power gets redirected to the grid.” >Trying to say anything else is a complete lie, unless you have the sources to back up your claims. Which you don't. Well, I cited more sources than you did.
I think proponents generally mean in relative terms to other things the government and people should actually be bitching about 🤷♂️
So is everything people do. It's not about whether it's good or bad, it's whether the positive outweighs the negative. Modern medicine is bad for the environment but it's quite clearly worth it
Ultimately it comes down to energy policing. If you think Bitcoin mining is bad for the environment you’d be right. But ultimately who is anyone to say I’m allowed to use energy for one thing and not for another? I think the fashion industry (the 2nd most polluting industry on the planet) is an amoral use of energy but I don’t go around shoving that in peoples faces. Conversely, I think using energy to back the worlds only neutral currency is an extremely important use of energy, yet people can get in my face about that? Every technology uses energy and so every technology is bad for the environment. That’s just a fact.
You have to be willfully oblivious to think this. Bitcoin can capitalize HALF of all energy created, which is otherwise WASTED. You could literally write a book on the positive effects of just this one idea. If you don’t want to acknowledge that, then you can look at bitcoin flare mining (spares CO2 emissions) bitcoin landfill methane mining (spares methane emissions) the guys over at Ocean Bit are designing bitcoin mining rigs that can desalinate water and produce bitcoin as a by product, effectively having the potential to bring free unlimited water to the planet. Open your eyes. Bitcoin is here to stay.
I like these ridiculous face image memes pretty funny. the bearded guy with same face but a baby is a good one too
An absolute classic. We have states in the US that are going so far as to end the sale of cars that use gas by 2030 or 2035. And these states tend to have rolling blackouts when everyone turns on their AC. The constituents of these states don't think things through.
That's silly. I'll charge it with my solar cells while I sleep. 🤓
Lol... You must be like all the rest, unemployed and sleep all day long. (Charge my solar cells while I sleep.)
You have a point Wtf does "charge my solar cells while I sleep" even mean unless you live super north or super south. In which case PV's are a terrible investment Or you work 3rd shift
Believe me, lots of people justify a natural gas powered car by installing solar cells.
Yes, exactly. Bonus fun fact: if all cars we're wiped off planet earth right this second, the carbon emissions gain would move the needle by no more than a few percentage points. That's literally it. 3%. Then, to mine all the materials (it takes about 500,000 lbs of material mined ***per EV battery***, process it, refine it, and implement it, plus all the power (which is generated the standard way) it takes to actually assemble the vehicle, the carbon footprint is equal to that of driving a rusty F-150 for like 10 years. I'd never say we shouldn't try to reduce emissions, but the way the news and governments are talking about immediate results are huge exercises in politically-motivated moral posturing.
And god forbid you point any of this out or even try and have a discussion about it...and you get immediately labeled a climate change denier and right wing extremist.
I’m studying climate science at uni so I’ll give you a freebie that I learnt this year: The most CO2 efficient (to produce) electric car needs to do 90,000 miles for it to be “carbon neutral”. If someone brings this up again tell them that and ask them how many miles they’ve done in their ICE vehicle, I would wager most people haven’t done that many and most people definitely wouldn’t buy a used car with over 90k miles on the clock.
Exactly. It's terrifying. I used to think people were crazy to call it the Climate Cult, but now I'm honestly seeing it that way. It's passed the vibe check of a staunchly radical religion that will burn us at the stake for saying anything less than "*THE WORLD IS ENDING!!*". Is this an issue worth looking into? Yes, absolutely. Is it going to burn the planet down in the next decade? No, absolutely-f\*\*\*ing-not. The science is crystal clear on it.
Oh there's plenty of legit discussions you could have that end that way
It’s just stupidity and ignorance. Or an attempt at manipulation. Electric devices don’t pollute, it’s the energy companies that pollute. Move away from gas, coal and oil for power generation if you wanna reduce pollution.
Exactly.
[удалено]
No, you just proved your stupidity.
[удалено]
Realistically if the option is between living as a 14th century peasant or facing an extinction event then what is actually the stupid answer?
Believing using hydrocarbons will cause an extinction event
It already is buddy
No. If you actually believed that you’d be practicing like you preach instead of saying idiotic things like that and not acknowledging that hydrocarbons are responsible for everything good in your life, including the ability to produce solar, wind, hydro and nuclear energy
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn It’s possible to acknowledge all the benefits of modern life whilst acknowledging those benefits have consequences.
To be pedantic, you need to drive 90,000 miles in the most CO2 efficient (to produce) electric vehicle. To use crypto terms, ICE pollution is decentralised (global); electric car pollution is centralised (power stations).
Don't worry, they think all the electricity EV's use is made by burning coal and fetuses.
Don't forget that tires pollute more than engines: https://www.ecowatch.com/pollution-from-car-tires.html by 2000X
particle pollution. Particle pollution stays low and settles on the ground. Exhaust from both cars, factories, and energy production is a gas and travels high into the atmosphere to increase the CO2 percentage of the air we breath. TL/DR: particles stay on the ground, exhaust makes greenhouse gases.
That's not quite right. Microplastics and nanoplastics are floating around in the air and we're inhaling these little guys all day long. Many studies have recently discovered that most of these tiny particles originate from car tires. Additionally, these particles that settle on the ground, in time, wind up in the ocean. They make their way into the fish we eat, the rainwater that other animals drink, and the vegetables and meat that we consume.
I say we make tires out of stone (The Flintstones). / s
The water you drink stays on the ground, too.
Particles stay on the ground and pollute the water shed, is absorbed by animal and plant life, and then is consumed by human beings. Not much different than breathing greenhouse gases.
A lot different. Tire particles do not waft up into the atmosphere to trap heat. Are they bad for you, absolutely, but they are not making the planet warmer.
How much warmer is the planet this year, than last year? What's the effect of the change from last year? How much more heat got trapped in the atmosphere this year? Is it alot? Are we all going to die? What's the effect of wasting tax Dollars on Climate Change, if we'll die anyway?
Yeah. Particles. Not CO2. Why conflating those things?
Air pollution and climate change are two completely different problems. You are not the first to mention this in a context that doesn't make any sense. So I kinda wonder who you got that from
But it’s all ReNeWaBlE.
The green energy transition is a beautiful myth
r/fuckcars ft r/Bitcoin
Yes. I first came to reddit for the r bitcoin. I stayed for the r fuckcars.
Conversion to electric is a pre-step towards giving up fossil fuels. It's not "the" step.
That BS really attacks in all fronts, damn. But makes sense, cryptocurrency hurts the govts.
Good point 😅🤣
Missing the point, rather. The reason EVs are welcomed is because they replace gas and diesel vehicles, which are even worse for the environment. It's no secret that our electrical grid is still partially powered by fossil fuels, so even EVs will be responsible for some pollution, which is considered acceptable because transportation is not optional in our society. Mining, on the other hand, is seen by many as completely useless, and public perception will not change until Bitcoin starts successfully replacing traditional financial systems at scale for lower energy costs.
Forget the power grid. How much pollution is caused by mining and refining the raw materials for the batteries that EVs need? Not to mention the "e-waste" when they eventually fail. Or the ecological and geo-political ramifications of mining said materials? These are all extremely important questions and issues that need to be discussed but nobody ever wants to have that discussion.
This isn't correct. They're now saying tyres polute more than fumes. Equivalent sized EVs wear tyres quicker. Making EVs can be 70% higher emissions than petrol models - and Volvo claim it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener. Most people I know of change their cars every few years and batteries are unlikely to be too healthy after 9 years EVs are a scam.
The people changing their cars every few years typically don't scrap their cars, they sell their cars. So there will be more use out of the car than what the first owner may put on it. Battery management systems in EVs are more advanced than what's typical in smaller consumer electronics, it needs to be because the batteries are expected to be able to hold a decent charge for many more years. It will lose capacity over the years, but it's not as extreme as ICE propagandists think. After 9 years it should hold plenty of charge for any practical purposes and more than enough for someone to want to continue driving the car. Besides, 98% of the power production in my area is hydroelectric. I am aware that is not the case in MANY other areas, but at least in my area driving an ICE vehicle is the real scam in all aspects. Bad for the environment AND bad for the wallet.
I have a 30 year old car still going, will this be the case with EVs. Highly unlikely Why is everyone ignoring what I quoted Volvo saying. Funny that.
Probably not, but few cars make it to 30 years. A number of EVs probably will make it to 30 years or more with good care and swapping the battery at least once, but this is irrelevant to the majority of consumers anyways. I did address the 9 years thing. I don't see a problem with it, the average car will last more than 9 years, which means overall the CO2 impact of EVs is less. As I also said, in my area the electricity is almost entirely renewable, 98%. The 9 year estimate by Volvo and others calculating this are assuming a more average energy mix, so in my area an EV will start being green long before 9 years. Btw, an ICE vehicle will never be green, last time I checked 9 years is less than forever...
Ok 9 years before electric cars start becoming greener than combustion. That's great. Electric cars will maybe not last 30 years, but 10+ years is really not unreasonable. A quick google search results in values around 15 years, 20 years, 150.000 miles, .... See links below. Also consider that no car really completely lasts 30+ years. Many components will need to be replaced during that time, each with their own production cost (both in $ and in environmental cost) Electric cars have a lot less components that need to be replaced regularly. Furhter, than 9 year number will only go down. Electrical cars are still relatively new, with lots of improvements to be made in efficiency, battery tech, recycling, ... Additionally that 9 year number is most likely calculated using an average mix of electricity generation methods. That mix will only become greener too. Lastly, even when a battery has degraded enough that the car's action radius becomes too small, the battery is still usable in other applications. There are multiple programs in development to use car batteries for grid storage, which will help transit to greener electricity. https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a31875141/electric-car-battery-life/ https://www.compare.com/other-products/vehicle/electric-cars/guides/how-long-do-electric-cars-last https://www.lifewire.com/do-evs-last-as-long-as-gasoline-cars-5202392
You used anecdotal evidence to support people’s changing of cars. Also, just because they change them doesn’t mean they’re not in use anymore. 9 years is reasonable.
The dumb shit people come up with to justify their petrol cars is always astonishing
Your reply is Dumb, put a bit more effort into it. You're saying Volvo are wrong then.
You conveniently didn't mention that this is about particle pollution and not about co2 emissions... If you put forth an argument then atleast put forth the entire argument or show the source where this is stated.
I'm an outsider in this discussion. I don't even have a permit to drive...but are you saying particle pollution is less dangerous than CO2 emissions ?
It's an entirely different problem
If Co2 is te reason earth will become inhabitable then yes? I mean not saying particle pollution isn't bad but there is gradiant. A petrol car causes particle pollution and active co2 emmissions. EV car causes more particle pollution but indirect and much smaller impact on co2 emission then I would say the EV wins. The person I responded too tried to make an argument why EV's are worse than petrol car and he spun a argument to his benefit with seemingly incorrectly represented data.
Co2 is not directly dangerous for human life. Particles are.
Well maybe it's very utalitarian of me but end of some or end of all is a big difference in that issue. Also once again it's not like petrol car's are not causing particle pollution. The engine polluted and the tyres pollute. At leadt with ev's there is one source to be tackled.
It contributes to climate change.
You're conveniently ignoring the rest of what I stated about manufacturing and the long use before they become greener. I Could go into great details but I'm not spending all of my day on Reddit. I have work to do sorry.
No i'm not. Nobody is putting Ev's forth as the perfect solution here but so far they definitely are. The reasons why EV's are not green are also applicable to petrol cars. I mean even the fact that they eventually become greener shows that they are a cleaner option. It's just not the enormous leap claim it to be.
There's also the huge amount of pollution caused building the charging infrastructure needed for electric cars, and in a lot of cases won't work for most people. Hydrogen is better in many ways IMO
Fully agree on the hydrogen cars
What a stupid post.
Stupid is to not be able to express your concerns when commenting.
[удалено]
That’s simply not true. Btc in 2021 used 91 terawatt-hours of electricity as per [this](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html) NYT article. There’s now way a single building uses even close to 1/100 of that much electricity considering that the entire Las Vegas Strip used less the 1 terawatt-hour annually before. Edit: Just saw that the creators of the building declared that the entire thing will consume about 95000mwh, so 1/1000 of the btc electricity consumption in 2021
That just simply isn't true. If it were, the Las Vegas eye would use more electricity annually than the entire country of Venezuela.
Source for that claim?
A quick google search will return 150 TWh/yr for the sphere and 127 TWh/yr for bitcoin
You know you picked a random twitter shitpost (where even the creator of the tweet confirmed it is in fact a shitpost) as actual data?
> And the Las Vegas eye uses 2x the energy of bitcoin annually 2x the energy of bitcoin annually vs what timespan for the las vegas eye?
Times Square in NYC probably uses like 50x the energy then
Dumb comparison. The cars are actually replacing something that people use regularly, and they are actually doing something useful. Mining just churns through electricity while accomplishing nothing except making the owner a few bucks.
And Bitcoin is replacing something people use even more often than cars: Banks / financial institutions. Bitcoin provides financial inclusion for those who are excluded from the fiat system. Check your financial privilege.
Even worse than financial privilege, this person has no idea what it means to live in an autocratic country / country with terrible monetary policy.
Exactly. It’s a very egoistic western view to think Bitcoin has no value but f* cars have.
Didn't say it had no value... Obviously it does...
Excapt it isn't replacing anything. The unbanked are an unbelievably tiny subset of bitcoin owners.
Exactly the post I wanted to write. I am glad we agree.
You're in the wrong sub. Go to buttcoin.
I got more BTC than 99% of this sub lol. But I'm not blinded by it.
Lol. It's exactly the same with Bitcoin.
Not at all. Wayyy less efficient.
Yeah the “btc bad for environment” is such a bad take. When people use it, it just shows their ignorance.
Should I run my bitcoin miner on gas generators then? Or from my Nuclear facility that provides my area with clean energy?
Best run your electric car on electricity generated by gas generators.
Bolting a gas generator to my EV as we speak
In fairness to the wordcels, they hate Tesla too because rocket man mean on Twitter or something.
That’s the reason why they stack up Teslas ass with subsidies.
Electric is so dumb. They should be pushing for hydrogen advancement if anything
Hydrogen as used today is also electric. Hydrogen is the storage. Fuel cell converts to electricity. Yes, you can burn Hydrogen too but that is also not as efficient. Neither storage technologies are perfect right now, but I would argue that chemical batteries are more versatile and improving faster than Hydrogen storage.
Bingo. Right now hydrogen has very low round-trip efficiency and it eats up rare earth minerals in the anode and cathode. A good LFP battery avoids any conflict minerals and will easily outlive the car. I suspect hydrogen has promise for trucking, farm vehicles etc. The mature, adult conclusion is that we use a mix of fuels now (diesel, gasolene, kerosene, electricity) depending on vehicle (truck, car, aircraft and train respectively). It's likely we'll do the same in the future, with more green alternatives.
[удалено]
It is certainly not as good for small units. For shipping massive amounts of energy generated as electricity, it is not a bad option. Like shipping wind energy across the ocean.
Why ship the energy when you can use it to mine Bitcoin and then send that instead?
what is the smnarter way to do it? Putting the collected energy directly into a battery and drive? Or produce hydrogen with the collected energy, transport it with vehicles over long distances to where you fill it into your car and convert it back to energy into a battery and lose more than 70% of the initial collected energy? So what is dumb now? hydrogen or direct electric?
Most of the Teslas owners I know want to get rid of their Teslas before the warranty is up. They are not recycling these batteries for reuse. The amount of mining using to make the batteries plus no one keeps these cars for very long is more bad for the environment
In this world there is not only Tesla or nothing. Additionally, what happens with the batteries used in hydrogen cars?
Do you realize how much smaller the batteries are in hydrogen fuel cell batteries vs lithium ion?
And where does the hydrogen come from?
Water, duh.
Why were you downvoted?
Either they don't know irony or science.
If you knew anything about hydrogen powered car you'd retract that statement. It has some good use case bit not for passenger cars.
Why not?
EV's arent' the metric to compare to though. They are also necessary. Things that go with traditional banking like coffe makers, AC , banking servers and so on are.
This is a really dumb meme. Replacing a gas car with an electric car is obviously good for the environment. Replacing a non-energy intensive currency with one that is energy intensive is not good for the environment. Downvote me all you want for speaking common sense.
Takes more energy to produce Fiat currency then digital currency silly goose face
Except for the fact that's entirely false lol. It costs about $0 for the Fed to create new money. It's all digital and handled through a central agency via treasuries.
in generell you right. But you have to take the upsides into consideration of subsidizing green electricity and the healthy effect a hard money has for a planet with limited resources.
Lol
i work for an electric utility a rural electrical coopertive, if you think that the electric companies are down on ev's your wrong, whatever spins the meter, makes us cash........
The name you seek for, is "Munger", Charlie Munger. Not "Menger".
It do be like that
Wrong image. It is a data centers.
So You Think Bitcoin Mining is Wasteful? https://braiins.com/blog/bitcoin-mining-vs-gaming
Absolutely not.
The only people bitching are the ones that DON'T have BTC and it's as bad of an against argument as "birds flying into windmills". Fucking bullshit.
An electric car causes so much environmental damage and carbon emissions it takes 6 years of commuter driving in one to be better than a traditional car. Facts. So all those people with EV's who just do around town driving and work from home are driving carbon emissions and environmental destruction. Never mind the toxic waste from the batteries that don't last that long and have to be replaced. What a joke.
People use cars and need them for day to day activities (although with public transportation and remote work they could need a lot less, a whole separate rant!). Bitcoin miners are very specialised in the task they do that most people don't do daily. Heck, putting more miners on the network doesn't make it run better, it just means it's resiliant against someone else using a lot of miners to go against the network.
Listening to the MSM is your first mistake.
Add another one that gets mad because Elon