11–20 of 78 posts
The other amazing thing in that tweet is that Norway uses more energy per capita than the next three countries combined? Double the USA? What is the explanation there?
Iceland is small but has some power-hungry industries (that's the point, to produce Aluminum with cheap power), influencing their total.
Good. I want to incentivize the progression of humanity to a kardashev type 1 civilization and beyond.
The other amazing thing in that tweet is that Norway uses more energy per capita than the next three countries combined? Double the USA? What is the explanation there?
I was curious too. Quick Googling shows this breakdown of energy usage by sector and source: https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energibruk/energibruken... The Tweet is specifically about electricity (kWh). It appears Norway uses mostly electricity in applications where other countries might use more natural gas (heating). This is likely because Norway has plentiful clean hydroelectric electricity, so they export th…
Good. I want to incentivize the progression of humanity to a kardashev type 1 civilization and beyond.
The first google result for "how many people hold bitcoins" says that an estimated 46 million Americans own bitcoin. The huge inaccuracy shows the author's bias and kills the credibility of the rest of the thread.
Treating this as a "crypto problem" and not a general energy / fuels problem does almost nothing but sell clicks / views / newspapers.
Trying to contribute here though on where we really are in crypto and angles of attack for discussion, vs an alarmist view:
1) BTC maximalists don't care and will argue to the teeth that the energy costs are baked into the economic value of the network. From a purely market argument they're not wrong here. BTCs energy use is "worth it" to a lot of people who truly believe BTC to be a store of value, a hedge against inflation, and a vote for decentralization.
2) Short term companies like Crusoe Energy are working on solutions to onboard "trapped" energy stores to reduce the carbon footprint. The most likely outcome of these efforts is likely not an overall reduced carbon footprint given the continued growth and interest in the overall market. (2)
3) Proof of Stake is much more efficient than Proof of Work (3) but it is unlikely that BTC moves in that direction short term. Or perhaps ever.
(1) https://www.torquenews.com/9539/ford-f-150-continues-its-sal...
(2) https://www.crusoeenergy.com/
(3) https://www.coinbase.com/learn/crypto-basics/what-is-proof-o...
"this work was supported by PayPal" - lol
Anytime research is done by an incumbent under threat, probably not worth the paper it's printed on.
Guess how much the current banking system uses when you calculate worldwide all the physical money and coin printing, the servers, the electricity and environmental impacts of buildings and ATM's, the staff commutes, the marketing collateral and advertisements, the pamphlets and the brochures etc.
Oh that's right, we're not allowed to talk about that because narrative = bitcoin bad/energy use.
If you want to get a read on the "Reduce your carbon footprint" camp's success, check out the top selling vehicle in America (1) Treating this as a "crypto problem" and not a general energy / fuels problem does almost nothing but sell clicks / views / newspapers. Trying to contribute here though on where we really are in crypto and angles of attack for discussion, vs an alarmist view: 1) BTC maximalists don't care an…
I would love to hear responses vs downvotes to the floor
Do you think that we can regulate crypto into lower energy use?
Change hearts and minds?