More Weasel Words.
-
Musk is no longer taking Bitcoin for his cars ... he just found out mining uses a lot of energy ... and fossil fuels. Setting the stage for his next move (a "cheaper" currency).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
he just found out mining uses a lot of energy
The debate about energy consumption, for Bitcoin Mining, has been running for years. I doubt he just found out. More likely he's playing the market. Remember when he was making false claims about Tesla, to run up the price? The guy is a con-artist.
-
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
he just found out mining uses a lot of energy
The debate about energy consumption, for Bitcoin Mining, has been running for years. I doubt he just found out. More likely he's playing the market. Remember when he was making false claims about Tesla, to run up the price? The guy is a con-artist.
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining. Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
-
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining. Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
Slacker007 wrote:
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining.
Not quite a relevant comparison since, like it or not, Teslas are a product of the manufacturing vs. nothing is the product of bitcoin mining. There is a good question to consider: except for those Teslas (and all electric-only vehicles) that happen to get charged from Soloar/Wind/Hydroelectric/nuclear/&etc., they most likely use more energy than a regular vehicle. Why you may ask? Well every step in anything you do has an efficiency of less than 100%. Charging the vehicles with electricity produced from fossil fuels thus waste energy for this extra step (rather than burning fuel where its used: the engine). Added waste are power line transmission losses. All it really does is centralize the pollution (which has some value locally but not globally). That being said: hybrids, which don't have to be plugged in, save energy if you consider the excellent fuel economy. As for hydrogen fueled vehicles? At this point, there is more CO2 pollution from producing the hydrogen (typically from oil conversion) than from use at the vehicle. Last thing: it shows good insight that you consider the manufacturing process. Consider: does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Slacker007 wrote:
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining.
Not quite a relevant comparison since, like it or not, Teslas are a product of the manufacturing vs. nothing is the product of bitcoin mining. There is a good question to consider: except for those Teslas (and all electric-only vehicles) that happen to get charged from Soloar/Wind/Hydroelectric/nuclear/&etc., they most likely use more energy than a regular vehicle. Why you may ask? Well every step in anything you do has an efficiency of less than 100%. Charging the vehicles with electricity produced from fossil fuels thus waste energy for this extra step (rather than burning fuel where its used: the engine). Added waste are power line transmission losses. All it really does is centralize the pollution (which has some value locally but not globally). That being said: hybrids, which don't have to be plugged in, save energy if you consider the excellent fuel economy. As for hydrogen fueled vehicles? At this point, there is more CO2 pollution from producing the hydrogen (typically from oil conversion) than from use at the vehicle. Last thing: it shows good insight that you consider the manufacturing process. Consider: does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
:zzz:
-
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining. Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
300 Mw according to Wikipedia.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining. Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
Slacker007 wrote:
Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
Yes, I agree. But he's not wrong. It does use a huge amount of energy. In Iceland, Bitcoin Mining is using as much energy as the country's entire population. That also seems like complete madness. :wtf:
-
Musk is no longer taking Bitcoin for his cars ... he just found out mining uses a lot of energy ... and fossil fuels. Setting the stage for his next move (a "cheaper" currency).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
he just found out mining uses a lot of energy
He said,
Quote:
"We are concerned about rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions, especially coal, which has the worst emissions of any fuel,"
He didn't say he just found out. You need to get over your obsession with this guy. :zzz:
-
:zzz:
Yeah - I understand - knowledge really hurts you head.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Slacker007 wrote:
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining.
Not quite a relevant comparison since, like it or not, Teslas are a product of the manufacturing vs. nothing is the product of bitcoin mining. There is a good question to consider: except for those Teslas (and all electric-only vehicles) that happen to get charged from Soloar/Wind/Hydroelectric/nuclear/&etc., they most likely use more energy than a regular vehicle. Why you may ask? Well every step in anything you do has an efficiency of less than 100%. Charging the vehicles with electricity produced from fossil fuels thus waste energy for this extra step (rather than burning fuel where its used: the engine). Added waste are power line transmission losses. All it really does is centralize the pollution (which has some value locally but not globally). That being said: hybrids, which don't have to be plugged in, save energy if you consider the excellent fuel economy. As for hydrogen fueled vehicles? At this point, there is more CO2 pollution from producing the hydrogen (typically from oil conversion) than from use at the vehicle. Last thing: it shows good insight that you consider the manufacturing process. Consider: does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
The product of bitcoin mining is a completed transaction, at the lowest cost. Concentrating pollution is beneficial overall on a global scale. The reason is that the expensive removal technologies only have to be in a few places, and the removal can be done on an industrial scale. Let me illustrate with an example. Consider that Hg is widely acknowledged to be a bad substance and great efforts were made to remove as much of it as possible. When CFL light bulbs were introduced we were sold on the value proposition of saving energy to save the environment. Except for that little bit of Hg that was in each CFL, which eventually would find its way back into the environment, like a micro pollution event. Wouldn't you agree that dealing with mercury in a power plant is more efficient than setting up a whole new recycle stream in an attempt to remove microscopic amounts from a glass bulb that needs to be broken first? Most of these green energy attempts are sold on the basis hiding the overall cost, or shifting the cost to tax payers. There is this power plant in England that is touted to be the largest biomass powered of its kind. An example for the future no less. Where does the fuel come from? Oops! That is not a question that is helpful for the cause. Because it shows the false premise that you were sold. Everything we do has benefits and costs. The costs aren't always visible when politicians are involved, but if you go looking you will find them. But wait there is more.... "The IEA assembled a large body of data about a central, and until now largely ignored, aspect of the energy transition: It requires mining industries and infrastructure that don’t exist. Wind, solar and battery technologies are built from an array of “energy transition minerals,” or ETMs, that must be mined and processed. The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040. The world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand. As the IEA observes, albeit in cautious bureaucratese, there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. The supply of ETMs is entirely aspirational. And if it were pursued at the quantities dictated by the goals of the energy transition, the world would face daunting environmental, economic and social challenges, along with geopolitical risks."
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Musk is off his rocker on this one, for sure.
Yes, I agree. But he's not wrong. It does use a huge amount of energy. In Iceland, Bitcoin Mining is using as much energy as the country's entire population. That also seems like complete madness. :wtf:
In Iceland, it's all renewable, isn't it?
-
The product of bitcoin mining is a completed transaction, at the lowest cost. Concentrating pollution is beneficial overall on a global scale. The reason is that the expensive removal technologies only have to be in a few places, and the removal can be done on an industrial scale. Let me illustrate with an example. Consider that Hg is widely acknowledged to be a bad substance and great efforts were made to remove as much of it as possible. When CFL light bulbs were introduced we were sold on the value proposition of saving energy to save the environment. Except for that little bit of Hg that was in each CFL, which eventually would find its way back into the environment, like a micro pollution event. Wouldn't you agree that dealing with mercury in a power plant is more efficient than setting up a whole new recycle stream in an attempt to remove microscopic amounts from a glass bulb that needs to be broken first? Most of these green energy attempts are sold on the basis hiding the overall cost, or shifting the cost to tax payers. There is this power plant in England that is touted to be the largest biomass powered of its kind. An example for the future no less. Where does the fuel come from? Oops! That is not a question that is helpful for the cause. Because it shows the false premise that you were sold. Everything we do has benefits and costs. The costs aren't always visible when politicians are involved, but if you go looking you will find them. But wait there is more.... "The IEA assembled a large body of data about a central, and until now largely ignored, aspect of the energy transition: It requires mining industries and infrastructure that don’t exist. Wind, solar and battery technologies are built from an array of “energy transition minerals,” or ETMs, that must be mined and processed. The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040. The world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand. As the IEA observes, albeit in cautious bureaucratese, there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. The supply of ETMs is entirely aspirational. And if it were pursued at the quantities dictated by the goals of the energy transition, the world would face daunting environmental, economic and social challenges, along with geopolitical risks."
Member 12924312 wrote:
The product of bitcoin mining is a completed transaction, at the lowest cost.
No - it's to convert vast quantities of energy into something with speculative value and no intrinsic value. However, you do, at least, see that bigger picture is out there - nothing happens without sources and sinks for materials and energy. Most just look at the shiny promises. However, for your disdain based upon the IEA's comments, consider that no matter what and where we go we will need to build further infrastructure. In this case, I expand infrastructure to it's true magnitude, to wit, that in include not only the means transportation of materials and energy but the manufacturing that is required to support the infrastructure . . . which itself puts additional demands upon it. We more-or-less agree on this portion. Where we probably diverge is that presuming you don't greatly change the manner in which our planetary culture is evolving, we'll still need more power, more minerals, more mining to get them, and so forth. It all comes down to a matter of planning long-term or short-term for the full impact. By "full", I mean globally and environmentally as well as economically. Bitcoin is just another massive gambling forum - worse, if that can be imagined - than the current state of the world's stock markets.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
he just found out mining uses a lot of energy
The debate about energy consumption, for Bitcoin Mining, has been running for years. I doubt he just found out. More likely he's playing the market. Remember when he was making false claims about Tesla, to run up the price? The guy is a con-artist.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
I wonder how much "energy" his Tesla manufacturing plants consume....compared to say, Bitcoin mining.
Not quite a relevant comparison since, like it or not, Teslas are a product of the manufacturing vs. nothing is the product of bitcoin mining. There is a good question to consider: except for those Teslas (and all electric-only vehicles) that happen to get charged from Soloar/Wind/Hydroelectric/nuclear/&etc., they most likely use more energy than a regular vehicle. Why you may ask? Well every step in anything you do has an efficiency of less than 100%. Charging the vehicles with electricity produced from fossil fuels thus waste energy for this extra step (rather than burning fuel where its used: the engine). Added waste are power line transmission losses. All it really does is centralize the pollution (which has some value locally but not globally). That being said: hybrids, which don't have to be plugged in, save energy if you consider the excellent fuel economy. As for hydrogen fueled vehicles? At this point, there is more CO2 pollution from producing the hydrogen (typically from oil conversion) than from use at the vehicle. Last thing: it shows good insight that you consider the manufacturing process. Consider: does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
I've seen that argument before. I believe the response was that, as efficiency has consistently been improving, this hasn't been a problem since the early 90s. You may want to update your sources.
-
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
does a solar cell, during it's lifetime, produce more energy than it cost to produce? Purifying silicon, starting from sand, is a very very energy intensive process (like aluminum production).
I've seen that argument before. I believe the response was that, as efficiency has consistently been improving, this hasn't been a problem since the early 90s. You may want to update your sources.
dandy72 wrote:
efficiency has consistently been improving,
I will presume you mean the efficiency of the manufacturing process. Also, improving the useful lifetime would implicitly increase that efficiency. The efficiency of the cells (of any type) is limited by the nature of the beast. Only light of a minimum wavelength is capable of being converted to electricity which is limited by the solar spectrum. If you modify the cells to accept more of the longer wavelengths then the band gap is reduced. Band gap -> voltage Band Width -> current Power = voltage * current If you reduce the band gap you get higher current but lower voltage. The product of the two, which is the power (the useful output measurement for comparison) comes in at about 20% and that's pretty well achieved.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Musk is no longer taking Bitcoin for his cars ... he just found out mining uses a lot of energy ... and fossil fuels. Setting the stage for his next move (a "cheaper" currency).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
yes Musk is a weasel and in general a blow hard. As for him delivering. I am not 100% sure on that. But he does recruit and reward good talent and he does a good job at being visionary. Bitcoin - yes we have always known that. Solar - Solar cells like any product weren't that good when first produced. They were expensive and the return was less than 8% or so. Now though. The manufacturing process has been improved a great deal. And also the efficiency has improved drastically. nearly 50% in some cases. So I am not sure that can be much of an argument. But the comments about the rare earth metals and other important elements for producing everything we use. That is huge. Seriously huge. We are seeing this already in computer screens and batteries for cell phones. It is harder and harder to find the minerals needed to produce what people want to consume. And are we going to stop people from consuming. No. Just look at the "gas shortage" this week. People will over consume if they don't think there is enough. Just because of me first mentality. People are stupid. People are stupid and I think Musk knows this and is using it against them.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
-
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
he just found out mining uses a lot of energy
The debate about energy consumption, for Bitcoin Mining, has been running for years. I doubt he just found out. More likely he's playing the market. Remember when he was making false claims about Tesla, to run up the price? The guy is a con-artist.
-
yes Musk is a weasel and in general a blow hard. As for him delivering. I am not 100% sure on that. But he does recruit and reward good talent and he does a good job at being visionary. Bitcoin - yes we have always known that. Solar - Solar cells like any product weren't that good when first produced. They were expensive and the return was less than 8% or so. Now though. The manufacturing process has been improved a great deal. And also the efficiency has improved drastically. nearly 50% in some cases. So I am not sure that can be much of an argument. But the comments about the rare earth metals and other important elements for producing everything we use. That is huge. Seriously huge. We are seeing this already in computer screens and batteries for cell phones. It is harder and harder to find the minerals needed to produce what people want to consume. And are we going to stop people from consuming. No. Just look at the "gas shortage" this week. People will over consume if they don't think there is enough. Just because of me first mentality. People are stupid. People are stupid and I think Musk knows this and is using it against them.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
rnbergren wrote:
But the comments about the rare earth metals and other important elements for producing everything we use. That is huge. Seriously huge. We are seeing this already in computer screens and batteries for cell phones. It is harder and harder to find the minerals needed to produce what people want to consume.
Despite their name, rare-earth elements are relatively plentiful in Earth's crust, with cerium being more abundant than copper; they are just difficult to extract. The problem with them being "harder to find" is due to the combination of because China being the world's leading producer and the US-China relations at the moment. This is making it difficult for the US to obtain them.
Nothing succeeds like a budgie without teeth.
-
Musk is no longer taking Bitcoin for his cars ... he just found out mining uses a lot of energy ... and fossil fuels. Setting the stage for his next move (a "cheaper" currency).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
-
It seems to me that discussions in codeproject are getting more and more like Twitter spats
What, when one person proclaims to be correct (ALL THE TIME), and all others are wrong? In that case, I suppose you have a point. :thumbsup:
-
Yeah - I understand - knowledge really hurts you head.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
You touched on something that I've wondered how it all shook out. You'd think that someone would put all this down and list the pros, cons, and costs. Then you could see which problems you could solve and move forward with the best solution. Unfortunately, money gets involved and everyone is just using salesman speak (conning) the next person to put money in their pocket...
