News Just 137 crypto miners use 2.3% of total U.S. power — government now requiring commercial miners to report energy consumption

[helper800]

It is not clean at all, simply do not emit CO2. And it is even less clean if you consider 3 Miles Island, Chernobil or Fukushima (only to list most famous).


"recyclable" is not the word I would have used, after 2 or 3 times you have to store the waste somewhere.


for real, not mutagene or deadly radioactive ?

3 miles island, Chernobyl, and fukushima will never happen again. Only those specific types of plant designs could have caused those specific accidents. Newer and retrofitted older plants physically cannot cause such disasters. We are magnitudes of order significantly more likely to drop an A/H bomb on ourselves on accident than new plants causing any meaningful disaster. Look up Broken Arrows.

Define clean for me then.

 

[derekullo]

Thats a VERY low bar to beat.

https://www.theblock.co/data/crypto-markets/prices/annualized-btc-volatility-30d

It's a bit of a stretch but you could compare the volatility of bitcoin to the inflation of a country.

According to that chart bitcoin's annual volatility for the past 12 months is about 40% on average with a high of 72% and a low of 15%.

If the current annualized volatility for bitcoin holds true then if X country had an inflation rate greater than 72% then you could make a case of holding those assets in bitcoin versus those other currencies.

Either way its a highly risky thing to do, but people in X country may not have access to safer alternatives; US dollars, Euro, ...

According to

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/inflation-rate-by-country

Those countries would include Venezuela, Lebanon, Argentina and Syria.

 

[USAFRet]

Those countries would include Venezuela, Lebanon, Argentina and Syria.

Again, low bar.
Not hard to beat.

 

[Flayed]

While I agree nuclear power seems a much better option than burning fossil fuels the costs are high. The new one the French are building for us is now projected to cost £46 Billion and dealing with the waste is an expense that keeps growing. Hopefully, these new mini-reactors will be a better option in the future.

 

[Geef]

>It is not clean at all, simply do not emit CO2. And it is even less clean if you consider 3 Miles Island, Chernobil or Fukushima (only to list most famous).

Each of the failures you listed had reasons for the failure that are solvable. First two were user error, and better training needed. The last was the plant owner not planning ahead for a Tsunami happening. All three dealt with more money needed but not spent.

There are many much cleaner and safer ways to use nuclear power. Some generate a little less power but would never have a problem of possible meltdown.

Its a real bummer when people just fear something because they were told to by the news who's trying to get ratings.

 

[gdmaclew]

Electricity is a market. Who cares how much they used? Generate more.

The general public cares, since they are always being told to conserve electricity for frivolous things like light, heating, cooling. You know, the things they need to live.
But the crypto miners use as much as they want for something that is basically useless for everyday life.

 

[Geef]

Another goofey thought about nuclear waste storage. Why not combine two things together?

There are multiple places on the planet where people are trying to dig the deepest hole ever dug in the ground. Once they finish their dig, they could allow countries to drop a load of nuclear waste down it and fill it in. Nuclear waste 7 miles down is NOT going to bother anyone ever. People doing the "Oh but it'll get into the soil" 7 miles down there isn't soil for it to get into. Anyway, it won't ever go up.

 

[atomicWAR]

Your points are reasonable but you have understated a lot here, in my opinion. For instance along with the stated issues of traditional renewables you have issues like turbine blades from wind energy going directly into landfills and old solar cells and related e-waste from solar are in a similar situation. The production of turbines, their blades, solar cells, electronics, other components largely negates the positives they have on our environment. These renewable are still a net positive, but that does not mean that they do not create problems of their own kind. As far as the hazardous waste goes for nuclear power generation, people really have no idea how dangerous it is so they assume it will kill them if they are within 100 yards, when in reality the waste is so well contained, being anywhere near the waste is akin to normal background radiation.

Oh for sure I dumbed it down to keep my argument simple. There is infinitely more subtleties to the issue. But I agree renewables are a net positive. Its just does that extend to crypto, making guilt free? Hmmm that I am less sure on, at least for now. Which is why I am interested to see how crypto plays out as I want to give it a fair chance BUT I don't want to be blind to its inherent issues either. Its a tricky debate ATM.

 

[NinoPino]

3 miles island, Chernobyl, and fukushima will never happen again.

You are right, probably the names will be different. 😀

 

[yeyibi]

2.3% if true is a crazy amount of energy for only 137 entities, I hope it is overestimated.
But somebody knows some legitimate uses for cryptocurrencies (apart ransom, scam, extorsions and so on) ?

Yes:
-Saving.
-Protection from inflation.
-Safe transference of money.
-Cheapest transference of money.
-Any type of non criminal payment without paying unnecessary intermediaries like credit cards.

 

[yeyibi]

Getting customers to pay more each month to finance an upgrade to an existing power plant or to build a new power plant all to satisfy the energy needs of a crypto-mining operation is the hard part.

Either the crypto miners pay for the energy they use, hence financing new power plants, or the price is being distorted by the government.
On any case, the government is the problem.

 

[yeyibi]

Crypto Currency offers nothing of value to society.

If people buys it, it offers value. Value is subjective.

Who are you to decide the value of things for other people? Is the same as deciding if other people can be gay or not, or which religion they can have. You may believe what it has no value, but your opinion is irrelevant, because you are not on their place, and is none of your business to decide the value of anything for other people.

 

[NinoPino]

Yes:
-Saving.
-Protection from inflation.
-Safe transference of money.
-Cheapest transference of money.
-Any type of non criminal payment without paying unnecessary intermediaries like credit cards.

Inflation apart, all the list can be done also with standard money.
Inflation do not depend on the currency but the society. If today you need 1 bitcoin to buy a kg of bread and tomorrow you need 1.1 bitcoins to buy same amount, this is inflatio. I cannot understand how bitcoins can protect from this.

 

[toffty]

Hopefully the first step to banning the use of bitcoins and conversion of crypto to/from USD

 

[yeyibi]

Inflation apart, all the list can be done also with standard money.
Inflation do not depend on the currency but the society. If today you need 1 bitcoin to buy a kg of bread and tomorrow you need 1.1 bitcoins to buy same amount, this is inflatio. I cannot understand how bitcoins can protect from this.

No. You are wrong in all of that.
-Central banks are adopting Crypto currencies, (CDBC) so you are wrong at the start.

-If you saved $100 dollar in the year 2000, at this date, you lost more than 50% of your savings due to inflation.
-Inflation, in long term, only depends on the quantity of money printed. It's a lie that it "depends on the society".

-You do not talk in name of any of the 8 billion people in the planet.
-The Chinese can only save by buying houses, but more than 400 million Chinese were scammed by the government. They spent all their life savings buying "tofu houses",and were scammed by the government. Lost all their life savings, and will never recover it.
-Hundreds of millions of Latin Americans and people in poor countries cannot save in any other way than with crypto.
-If you travel with cash, you may be robbed by pickpockets. You cannot carry more than a small amount in cash without being robbed by governments at airports. Billions of people are even more vulnerable than you, and have no better solution that crypto.
-If you use a bank account, you pay enormous expenses in transferences, financial services that you never agreed, and exchange rates.
-Today people is denied use of bank accounts for the crime of individual opinion, like posting something in facebook, that somebody else may interpret as offensive, even without merit.

 

[USAFRet]

Yes:
-Saving.
-Protection from inflation.
-Safe transference of money.
-Cheapest transference of money.
-Any type of non criminal payment without paying unnecessary intermediaries like credit cards.

Saving is not a key feature of crypto
Protection from inflation - hahahaha
Safe transference of money - That trivially be done between bank accounts, and different banks, MUCH safer than a crypto exchange
Cheapest transference of money - Cheaper than free?
Any type of non criminal payment without paying unnecessary intermediaries like credit cards - Again, chaper than free?

 

[NinoPino]

If people buys it, it offers value. Value is subjective.

Who are you to decide the value of things for other people? Is the same as deciding if other

He expressed only his opinion, he is not deciding nothing for others.

people can be gay or not, or which religion they can have. You may believe what it has no value, but your opinion is irrelevant, because

Are you really saying that the opinions of the others are irrilevant ? Are you deciding the value of other' opinions ?

you are not on their place, and is none of your business to decide the value of anything for other people.

Nobody tried to do that.
Instead of talking of air you can explain the great value of crypto for the society. What I actually see is a useful currency to speculate, to do any sort of illegal business, and a huge energy waste.

 

[toffty]

Yes:
-Saving.
-Protection from inflation.
-Safe transference of money.
-Cheapest transference of money.
-Any type of non criminal payment without paying unnecessary intermediaries like credit cards.

1 and 2 were debunked. Bitcoin is tied 1:1 to USD
3 as safe as the hashed wallet. Banks are a much safer option due to their paper trails and no anonymity in transactions.
4 unless you're dealing with tens of thousands of dollars, there's cheap/free options already for normal money
5 same as 4

 

[yeyibi]

1 and 2 were debunked. Bitcoin is tied 1:1 to USD

That's an atrocious lie. Just today, bitcoin was worth 45,000,and 6 hours later it was worth 48,000

3 as safe as the hashed wallet. Banks are a much safer option due to their paper trails and no anonymity in transactions.

Safer for who? You do not talk in name of 8 billion people in the planet.

4 unless you're dealing with tens of thousands of dollars, there's cheap/free options already for normal money

No. Every alternative is way more expensive.You just don't know how to calcualte the costs.

 

[yeyibi]

He expressed only his opinion, he is not deciding nothing for others.

That's' a lie. He claimed that cryptos has no value, but value is decided only by the people who buys it, same as the value of being gay is decided by the person that chooses it, or the value of having a religion is decided by the person that belongs to that religion.

If something has no value for you, that's meaningless.

And yes, your opinion is worthless to me. I get no value from your opinion, no matter how much you value it.

 

[TJ Hooker]

It is not clean at all, simply do not emit CO2. And it is even less clean if you consider 3 Miles Island, Chernobil or Fukushima (only to list most famous).

The fact that one of the worst nuclear accidents you can think of, 3 mile island, resulted in no deaths or measurable impacts to the environment or health of those in the area, is in itself indicative of how public perception of nuclear safety differs from reality, no?

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html#effects

There are no deaths currently attributed to Fukushima either. And IIRC, both Fukushima and Chernobyl (particularly the latter) had serious issues in design and/or operations, that could have reasonablly foreseen and mitigated.

Nuclear power is held to a standard that is far stricter than traditional generation methods. Fossil fuel generation has massive effects on public health, but you barely hear about it (other than environmental/greenhouse gas concerns, and even that is relatively recent). Coal is even radioactive!

"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[USAFRet]

OK....lets stop attacking people, and simply speak to the article.
Deal?

 

[yeyibi]

Saving is not a key feature of crypto

Yes, it is.

Protection from inflation - hahahaha

Not an argument.

Safe transference of money - That trivially be done between bank accounts, and different banks, MUCH safer than a crypto exchange

No bank is free. People doesnt works gratis. If you believe that your bank is free, you are being scammed.
You don't know the situation of 8 billion people in the planet.

Cheapest transference of money - Cheaper than free?

Crypto is free. The rest are not.
And you do not know the costs for 8 billion people in the planet.

 

[USAFRet]

You don't know the situation of 8 billion people in the planet.

None of us do.

 

[TJ Hooker]

While I agree nuclear power seems a much better option than burning fossil fuels the costs are high. The new one the French are building for us is now projected to cost £46 Billion and dealing with the waste is an expense that keeps growing. Hopefully, these new mini-reactors will be a better option in the future.

Part of that comes from the fact that nuclear energy sources have to price in the cost of dealing with all impacts and waste generated. If fossil fuel generation was held to the same standards, I'm sure it'd be a lot more expensive to build/operate than it currently is.