31–34 of 34 posts
that's almost just under one bitcoin... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bitcoin-mining-energy-consumpti... says miners use 29.05TWh annually, so [29.05TWh / (365 * 24)h] = 3.3GW
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, this explains it. Do you think there are numbers somewhere about how much carbon is saved globally due to this? Them selling the energy may drive down the prices, increasing demand. So it could be that more energy is consumed at the same carbon level, rather then less carbon emitted. Perhaps they are paying for someone's bitcoin mining.
Google's approach subsidizes the additional cost of renewable energy sources over fossil fuels. Because Google sells exactly what they consume, they aren't actually inducing more electricity demand. And even if that was a factor, renewables are still an order of magnitude more green than coal.[1] So feel free to invest in solar companies :-) By the way, carbon neutrality is easier to achieve than 100% renewable. Goog…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 GW measures average power. Google just buys the entire output of wind or solar farms, so supply is not matched with demand.[1] This is a known problem with renewables. Elon Musk claims that he can solve it with a relatively small area of batteries like the Powerpack, but he's sold less than 1 GW so far because batteries are expensive. [1] https://environment.google/projects/announcement-100/
I guess that accounting is natural for marketing numbers. I don't generally think it's a problem, it's just a feature of those generation methods and just means we need overprovisioning. Whereas fossil fuels have unsurmountable problems and cause untold human suffering, famines and damage to the environment.