Reddit Posts
Comparison: The Annual Energy Consumption of Bitcoin
Mentions
> Median inflation adjusted housing prices **per square foot** This is an interesting twist: per square foot. So, basically you're saying we buy much bigger homes and rent much bigger apartments now, but we get roughly the same bang for the buck for the quantity being bought. That's fair. But how many of us would even be allowed to buy a home, or rent for that matter, a unit of the same size one could get in the 1930s? I mean, they're just not available, right? And good luck buying that downscale cheap car that only gets 15 MPG and will last about 100K miles, but only if you're lucky. Etc. etc. The fact is that we get SO much more qualitatively now than we used to get.
Think of gwei as the price to perform work, like the price for a gallon of gas. Think of a transaction as a trip to a certain place. Some trips are longer others are shorter. Take the price per gallon * the distance traveled. In this analogy the car or vehicle is always the same so the MPG doesn't fluctuate.
100% he would have had some sort of mysterious accident no doubt had he not hid his identity Didn't someone find a way to power a car with water, or find a way to make any car get 100s of MPG and then suddenly... ded?
Hahaha! 30 is good! Seems the 420d does it all. I’m very impressed tbh. If I’m feeling stupid in the Audi, I can bring it down to 8-11MPG. Expensive as hell to run.
Still playing around with it, seems to be very temperature dependent and driving dependent ofc. I’d say I could push nearly 60mpg on a long run on eco-pro, 50mpg if I’m driving with my foot down… sports mode around town… pretty dreadful, 30MPG if I’m lucky 😂
BMW got some punch out of the small engines, they show it off better than the large engines imo! What MPG do you get?
Haha yeah was leaning towards A5 sport back or the 4 series but was sold on the red leather interior, looks really nice tbh. Honestly even though it’s the smallest engine it’s bloody nippy enough for me, anything faster than this seems a little unnecessary for everyday driving, low tax good MPG etc. Cheers
I'm back to the 4Runner for now. Terrible MPG but the things a tank and will never die
>They’re mining because there is profit or they have a business reason to believe there will be profit. What is inefficient about that? Just because something is profitable doesn't mean its efficient. Renting out a stretched Hummer is more profitable than renting out a bicycle, doesn't mean the Hummer is a more efficient means of transport. Any money spent on security far beyond what is necessary is an inefficiency. There's a reason cars aren't 20 ton titanium boxes that get 0.1MPG. >They’re not mining to provide network security. They’re mining for money. Correct. But they reason they're getting rewarded for mining is because its meant to provide network security. If the protocol is awarding far more money than is actually needed for security, that's an inefficiency that someone else has to pay for. >The network is secure because the incentives are correctly aligned They're not correctly aligned if its wasting far more resources on mining than actually needs to be secure. There's no way you could possibly predict the needed incentives 120 years in advance on a fixed schedule. Either that schedule has to award far more than necessary or else its risking becoming insecure if the price/fees don't perfectly align with the reward schedule. >The question is misleading. I’ve been using bitcoin daily since 2019 and never once was temped or suggested to pay anything remotely close to $60 for a transaction. MAX I ever was tempted was a couple dollars circa 2020 and 2021. And even then, the mempool always empties every week Sunday evening. So the premise of your question is simply false. How many on-chain transactions do you think it would take to scale Lightning Network to the size of Paypal or Visa? It's not a misleading question, you're just for some reason assuming the amount of on-chain transactions required when basically no one is using LN would be the same as when billions of people are using it.
>Yeah but it's a prius Laughs in $5 gas. 57MPG with AWD.
The cost to create something isn't what makes it valuable. You're describing the Marxist "labor theory of value", but the only thing that matters is supply vs demand If it costs $1 million to create a car, but it only gets 1 MPG and dies after 1 mile, no one is going to pay me $1 million for it
And thats my argument to a T. Bitcoin requires processing power, what is the power consumed by the banking industry when 20,000 US dollars gets put into circulation? ITS ASTRONOMICAL with physical banks, the employees driving their cars, then moving the physical bills in an armored truck that gets 6 MPG. It's all just FUD. Could someone smarter than me do the math on how much it costs (energy wise) an armored truck to operate every day? Keep stacking.
Apparently the Taiwanese people appreciate Pelosi's milkers as tribute. If this market pump continues, you can keep her as long as you please. I'll be here in the US continuing to enjoy fast food and driving an 11MPG Mercedes as the market skyrockets beyond our wildest dreams. Passive income baby!!!
>It would be like if every car spat out raw gasoline from the exhaust because it was so inefficient, and someone made a device that captured it and put it back in the car. Now every car gets more MPG and every driver saves money on gasoline. That's the same as every ETH transaction spits out raw ETH because it's so inefficient, and someone made a device that captured it and put it back into the network. Now every transaction goes in cheaper and every user saves money on gas fees. You would rather have 50% ethanol in the gas instead so we burn through it much faster, to give all the extra profits to the gas station. Just so the gas station generates more income at the expense of users. Because in your mind this is more fair. Did you forget to take your meds? Lol. "Raw" ETH? Wtf is that?
>Man, you are dense…. It is so hilarious that you think ETH spot price has no effect on ETH gas price in USD. Wow! How can you not grasp more expensive gwei means more expensive gas… Because I work with Ethereum EVERY DAY and I know how the fee market works. If gwei is more expensive in dollar terms it always costs less gwei to make a transaction. People who spend $5 to do $10 in work will not pay $11 to do $10 in work. It's that simple. >Not once you have explained how burning helps users, not speculators i.e hodlers. And you talking about it as if it is the truth. Burning helps users by not having *all* of their tx fees funnel straight to the most wealthy account. It's that simple. >It easy to use an analogy to see how your argument is devoid of logic. You are basically saying if the US govt destroyed crude oil supply then it would help commuters and car owners, not benefitting oil commodity speculators and OPEC. I guess people would turn the world upside down if it is about pumping their bags. It would be like if every car spat out raw gasoline from the exhaust because it was so inefficient, and someone made a device that captured it and put it back in the car. Now every car gets more MPG and every driver saves money on gasoline. That's the same as every ETH transaction spits out raw ETH because it's so inefficient, and someone made a device that captured it and put it back into the network. Now every transaction goes in cheaper and every user saves money on gas fees. You would rather have 50% ethanol in the gas instead so we burn through it much faster, to give all the extra profits to the gas station. Just so the gas station generates more income at the expense of users. Because in your mind this is more fair. Your analogy is dumb.
Honestly i’d sell the car whatever the difference is get a nice Prius (Gayyyy ik) because of the nice MPG and also Gas prices and the rest WISELY invest. Or go whatever you feel is right.
Agreed. This is how I know we’re not even started with the recession yet. So many post about posts portfolio sizes still remaining. So many amazing/expensive new cars on the road, so many full airports, restaurants, malls, giant monster trucks getting. 12 MPG with gas $7 a gallon. I could continue ad nauseam. With that said, it’s not that I wish pain to come to anyone but we’re long overdue if 18 years can comfortably afford such purchases. Even with a very high household income. Fractions of a BTC are still a luxury and rare purchase for me. Also—Some advice Never a wise idea to advertise how much money you have on the internet. Crypto or otherwise. Stay humble.
That's like calling the car with "the best MPG by an insurmountable margin" the best means of transportation to Mars. Proof of work is outdated and almost offensive.
What's worse, my car that gets 22MPG but only takes 93 or my truck that gets 13MPG but takes 87? 😵💫
I rarely ever go to places like that, but we stopped and got Dairy Queen for 3 it was over $20. Just think the average person might have to work 3 hours at their job just to buy some KFC. Also I buy premium fuel. Thankfully the car gets 30+ MPG. Now we have a v8 Jeep as well that takes regular. That’s what is killing me.
You misunderstand. IF bitcoin was 20% of the world's power, it would be wasteful, agreed? Even if the use case for the tech itself was justified. It's like saying that cars are a requirement for today's world, so someone can't criticize a Hummer that only gets 5 MPG. Also, basically a rounding error? 110T kwh is not "basically a rounding error".
The question isn't when have conservatives sabotaged renewable technologies, but when haven't they? Republican Congressional members are not interested in policy measures that would incentivize transition: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/heres-what-congressional-republicans-are-thinking-on-climate-following-the-election Trump had a well known irrational hatred of wind turbines https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-s-windmill-hatred-worry-booming-industry-n1060206 The Bush Energy policy was written by Dick Cheney, a Halliburton exec, and his report was written with the help of hundreds of OnG officials and zero renewable energy industry input. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2016/07/07/when-bush-and-cheney-doubled-down-on-fossil-fuels-a-fateful-choice-for-the-climate/ It even extends to petty, idiotic shit like blaming Texas' power grid failure last winter on frozen wind turbines when it was primarily the failure to winterize natural gas supplies; like the Reagan administration immediately removing solar panels installed on the white house during the Carter administration; like widespread outrage at the phase out of incandescent bulbs Trump DOE appointees also canceled research into improving national power grid connectivity. It would have saved consumers "about $2.50 or more for every $1 invested in transmission," and could help prevent mass power grid failures like Texas'. But it would make coal less useful and wind and solar more viable so Conservatives shut it down and forced the researcher to depart for private industry https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/how-trump-appointees-short-circuited-grid-modernization/615433/ The Reagan administration rolled back MPG standards and the Bush administration blocked efforts to increase standards: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/04/wh-finalizes-strict-fuel-standards-035299 The Bush administration sandbagged state efforts to increase MPG standards: "California and 13 other states set their own state-specific vehicle standards — rules that were effectively blocked by a refusal of the Bush administration to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act." https://www.politico.com/story/2010/04/wh-finalizes-strict-fuel-standards-035299 The Trump administration rolled back Obama era CAFE increases: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/490318-trump-administration-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel-efficiency-standards/ Frankly, I personally don't have an issue with nuclear as long as costs aren't cut on safety since the consequences of failure are so high. But the reality is Nuclear isn't cost effective anymore and takes years to build. Solar and wind are now on the threshold of cheapest LCOE for new construction even without subsidies: https://www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/solar-and-wind-are-the-cheapest-new-sources-of-energy-says-bnef/ And grid level battery storage is a proven cost effective solution: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-big-battery-hornsdale-australia-cost-savings/
Or, hear me out, the decades of Conservative sabotage of renewable energy technologies, power grid connectivity upgrades, and automotive MPG standards mean demand is much higher than it should be, maintaining the opportunity for Russians to sell oil & gas
>Its entirely different technology and blockchain doesnt necessarily have to be PoW. Doesn't it? Then why are we wasting terawatts of energy and hundreds of millions of dollars a year on an unnecessary technology? >The energy used for PoW doesnt have to be dirty. Do you have a way of making solar panels, wind turbines and hydro-electric dams that doesn't pollute? >Energy - the ultimate resource becomes a currency trough cryptography and computing PoW doesn't trade energy. This is a common, misleading sales pitch to try and make the obscene energy waste of PoW as somehow being useful. 1 BTC does not entitle you to, nor grant you usable access to the energy used by miners, which is lost as heat. You could use the same energy spent on PoW to make aluminium-air batteries and then you could actually store, move and use the energy used in the creation of those batteries, unlike BTC which creates nothing useful, its simply an entry on a database controlled by 3 companies. >You're mad because for you this is a waste of energy? While stuff like this are also happening around the world? If you build a car that got 0.0001 MPG I would still be mad about it even though its a fraction of the energy Bitcoin uses. Unnecessarily wasting resources is stupid and harmful to the environment. You don't get out of that by going BUT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING BAD THINGS TOO!!!! There's a reason governments put limits on how fuel inefficient you can make a car despite the fact cars only make up a minority of energy usage and pollution. >You just cant compare these technologies man Didn't seem to be a problem when you were claiming blockchains are a cost superior alternative to SQL servers. Guess you just don't want comparisons that make blockchain look inefficient and useless.
>Yea you could scale up the SQL servers to provide redundancy but this also drives up the price and believe me the requirements for enterprise storage solutions far outweigh the costs of an asic miner or a gpu It costs over $100,000,000 to upload 1GB of data to Ethereum. How much do you think it costs to have a 1GB SQL database redundantly stored on AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, with a simple piece of code that checks to see if the server is actually returning anything and switches to a redundant back up when it does? >You unplug the SQL server and your data is inaccessible if not even corrupted from the abrupt shutdown. You unplug a miner and nothing happens - the blockchain and data is still there and will still be accessible even if only one node is left in the network (and nodes are all around the world, you could even spin a node up in the ISS from a flash drive). There's no magic difference to having a bunch of blockchain nodes all keeping a version of the database and having a bunch of SQL servers. Except a bunch of SQL servers aren't having to burn huge amounts of electricity on PoW, or pay off staking bagholders for PoS, so they're obviously far cheaper. > Have you worked with or administrated SQL servers or any servers? Yes. >You'd know the importance of data availability I've never had a minute of downtime on any of my SQL databases. Even if I had, a few minutes of downtime a year is not worth the massive costs and limitations of blockchains, considering all the other things I need a database to do. Offering "100% uptime vs 99.9999% uptime" as some major selling point is like selling a car that's 100% safe vs 99.9999% safe. Oh, and by the way, that 0.0001% safety increase comes at the cost of the car getting 0.0001 MPG, having a top speed of 10 MPH and only being able to fit 1 person. It's just not a credible cost/benefit for anything other than "selling someone a token that doesn't have to be used for years in hopes of selling it for more later".
How many MPG does ETH get?
I was being sarcastic. There's no danger of phasing out PoW too quick because its not being used for anything economically productive, in fact its massively economically destructive because it takes over 2000 kWh per transaction for Bitcoin which is ridiculously bad, and Ethereum isn't much better. It's like making a car that gets 0.0001MPG, its actively worse than just using what we already have.
Doubtful. Unless you get like 5 MPG or your bank is stupidly far away from your house
>Genetics, geopolitics, game theory, economics. <insert buzzwords here> The genetics one was especially funny. ​ >Energy abundance is a good thing When you use that energy for something that produces value, it is. When you just use it to heat the air doing random and useless calculations, not so much. ​ >The problem is not energy, but carbon emissions. Sadly, they go hand in hand. There's no power source that doesn't involve carbon emissions. So in practice, energy is the problem. ​ >You are proposing an ass-backwards solution that is not effective in practice First off, I'm not proposing a solution. Increasing efficiency alone is not a solution. But it is part of any feasible solution. And even though you say "it's not effective in practice", the fact is things have been getting more efficient since many years ago. Just compare the MPG of a new car with one from 1990. If you're going to say it's not effective, you're going to need to provide a source or a credible argument. Anyways, the very least would be \*not increasing our energy usage even more\*. And in its current status, Bitcoin represents exactly that. ​ >The unique nature of Bitcoin's energy requirements can serve as a positive vector in this regard, helping to bridge the gap between renewable energy production and its inefficient capture/distribution in our out-dated grid infrastructure. Why is our grid outdated? And how on earth does mining help with distribution? No offense, but I don't think you actually thought this one before typing. The unique nature of Bitcoin's energy requirements can serve as a huge waste of renewable energy that could go towards powering other stuff, thus reducing carbon emissions. It's funny that you think wasting huge amounts of energy will lead towards a future in which energy isn't scarce.
> Gas is four dollars a gallon Average price in the US is about $3.30 At $4 per gallon, if you have 2 people driving a thousand miles per month and getting 25MPG, you'd be paying $300 per month in gas.
The Bitcoin Mining Council said they are good for the environment? Color me shocked. Hey! Let's each cherry pick our own data. My turn. I recommend the Harvard Business Review article on bitcoin energy. "As a result, estimates for what percentage of Bitcoin mining uses renewable energy vary widely. In December 2019, one report suggested that 73% of Bitcoin’s energy consumption was carbon neutral, largely due to the abundance of hydro power in major mining hubs such as Southwest China and Scandinavia. On the other hand, the CCAF estimated in September 2020 that the figure is closer to 39%." If you think anyone is getting accurate numbers from there, I have... I have some bitcoin to sell you! Plus, let's pretend maybe 39% of the energy is renewable, doesn't mean this is a great deal for the environment. Remember, the other 61% is mostly coal. True story, I have some hippy-like friends, trying to live off the grid, all renewable etc. They bought a Prius. They get 50+MPG. They are *SO* proud. Until you realize to accommodate their off-the-grid self reliant lifestyle, they live 30 miles out of town. Any simple trip to the post office, or get some milk is 60 miles. So they get twice the MPG as my truck... and drive 4x to 5x as many miles as I do. They think they are making a difference, helping the world. But before they even start the math they are having a net negative impact, compared to me. They get twice the mileage, burn 4x the gas. Let's say bitcoin energy really is 39% renewable. Bitcoin mining still consuming as much energy as a small country. Roughly 110 Terawatt Hours per year, or the same energy usage as Sweden. Adding Sweden energy consumption x 60% (the non-renewable part) is not fighting climate change. I remember a comedian told a funny joke about people who fall into these logic traps. "Do you know what happens if two Prius's get in an accident?? Huh? A Panda is born!!" This is the same as "Thank god we are using 110 Terawatt Hours per year, some of it renewable(!). How else could we fight climate change??" Anyway, like I said, I come here once a week or so to chuckle at the kool-aid drinkers. Thanks for helping!
Well Bitcoin has the capability of doing that as well, only with much less energy consumption. I'm not the one attacking the dollar on the basis of energy fud though. There are much better criticisms of fiat than that. But when a Bitcoin critic comes along talking about energy, I expect them to have the same criticisms toward the dollar before I take them seriously, because the dollar is worse and it's not even close. Bitcoin has mining computers and nodes...that's it. Do they use a lot of energy? In the aggregate, yes, but now let's look at the dollar and its related infrastructure. How many banks with their physical buildings, lights, air conditioning, computers, commuting workforce are rendered obsolete by Bitcoin? How many armored truck companies? How many security guards? How much air travel is represented by banking related people? Is any of it necessary? How many wars have been fought to protect the dollar? How many bombs have been dropped and tanks fueled up? How many lives...what is the environmental impact of that? We measure cars fuel economy in MPG. Tanks take multiple GPM (gallons per mile). Why is this not a cause for concern by the handwringers? Now let's look at payment rails and international transfers. What is the environmental footprint of Visa worldwide? They have a lot of computers too. What about Mastercard? What about the banking transfer rails like SWIFT? These things are never discussed, but as bitcoin renders them obsolete. I could go on, but the list of industries propping up the dollar is long, and their combined energy usage is massive. Bottom line, I believe in freedom, and I don't like the idea of a society where people judge one another for the amount of energy they use. Using energy is a fundamental, perhaps the fundamental, proof of life. So this obsession with driving energy usage to 0 is in my opinion anti-human, anti-life, and only something that a wealthy elite would care about. But once it's brought up, sorry, Bitcoin wins easily. If you're an environmentalist, you should promote Bitcoin.
"This Power-Wheels jeep only has 0.25 horsepower and a range of 1 mile, but it gets great MPG and its electric."
Sell 10% and pay off my debt, 18k in student loans and 3k in credit card, then probably buy myself a car that doesn't have ABS problems and 13 MPG. I've lived with no decent income for a while (below min wage easily) so I'm fine with living frugally with the rest staying in crypto. I would probably take 20% and put it into stocks, and another 10% in gold.
If you had a car that got 2 MPG, would that be “one little problem to fix”, or would you get a better car?
> You've changed from 4L/100km for diesel in your other post to 5L/100km I wanted to give it a bit more leeway, as figures from manufacturers are usually not practical. Both the Merc A Class A180d and the Honda Civic 1.6 state figures around 80mpg. Not sure how practical that is. But if anything, me increasing the consumption figure should make EVs more attractive, not the opposite? The rest, I'm sorry with the units, I really have no intentions on converting from mpg to some sane units. Especially as you seem to live in the UK, and UK MPG are different from US MPG. Consumption is measured in volume per distance, and SI units are Liters and Kilometers :-( > Meanwhile, particulate and NOx emissions etc are vastly reduced with EVs That's nice, but unless you have to pay for it, it's not going to be much of an argument. It might have been an argument for you, but it won't be for the majority of people. Let's be real here.
The new Ford Maverick! I live in a city in CA so high MPG and a compact that can tow what I want to is everything I need!
> logic and physics changed since 1960 No, but engineering and efficiency has. Are you dense? > everything that has more power needs more energy (fuel) Again, efficiency and engineering has improved significantly. As an example: 1960 corvette: **315HP**, **13MPG** average. 2021 corvette: **490+HP**, **20MPG** average.
Why the heck do you drive a vehicle that is only 11MPG?? How much electricity do you use every month?! Jesus man, mother earth thinks you’re a dick but mostly you’re LITERALLY burning all your cash when you could be buying BTC!!
Where Lambo? Not in my garage. After no wheels for 1.5 years, this week bought the Yamaha XMAX 300 Maxi-Scooter for cash. 75MPG. Fly ride.
Honestly, it doesn’t feel that way to me. I’m 35 and I spend about the same on gas and entertainment now than in the past. Food is more expensive, but it’s still cheap enough that it’s not a significant part of my budget. Sure, when I got my license gas was $1.60/gallon, but the MPG on my car was literally half what is now. My parents spent 2-300/month for Cable and Internet, I spend 150 for internet and streaming services. Books are still free or practically free, and video games are cheaper today than ever if you simply wait a hit.
always wanted a vx for that sweet MPG
Building on this. I currently drive an SQ5. It’s fun as hell, but I’ll probably go with a non-S series next time. It takes premium, gets 12-15 MPG, and takes around $65 to fill up.
With how the used truck market is going you might get full retail value for your F150 in a year or two! Great time to play musical vehicles for sure. I'm saving up for a Kia Stinger or Audi A6 so here's hoping! I could at least grab the Stinger now, but it's financially inadvisable. Going to sit on my new job for a year and drive my little Jetta that gets 40+ MPG for my 2 hour commute... Good luck out there, friend! Let's see what happens end-of-year.
> The price of crude would tank if a engine was developed that got 1000 mpg and gained widespread adoption. To stick with this analogy, we should have seen a sharp drop in oil prices correlating with improvements in MPG side the inception of cars. It's not so straightforward because a rise in efficiency and supportive infrastructure increases demand. And with each cumulative doubling in demand (so long as the stock/flow ratio stays somewhat constant) price will increase by a constant percentage.
It depends how you look at the debt. £10,000 car loan for a brand new 22 plate car that is going to last you 10+ years with with no maintenance, MOT, cheap if any tax with great MPG. VS £2000 car bought with cash that will require £8000 spent on the car over the next 10 years along with lower MPG, higher road tax and MOT that starts that same year. In the long run buying a brand new car works out cost efficient providing you look after the car due to decreased running costs and government benefits. The downside is the loan repayments are higher over the next few years where as a cash car has no repayments but might require more work to be carried out at any given moment. I'm not saying go buy a Lambo on credit. I'm saying buying a sensible family car like a Dacia Sandero costs only £8995 brand new or the Toyota C-HR (Hybrid) is only £24,360 but the savings in fuel and road tax would bring that down to £20,000 easy within the first year. Over the next 5 years you're looking at a total cost saving of £10,000 based on an average of £150 a month on fuel and £30 road tax each month along with reduced car work required.
The idea of retirement funds is that you should be nearly debt free upon retirement. If you aren't paying $2000 a month for a mortgage, $700 a month for a car, and $500 a month on various debts(student loans, credit cards, medical, whatever)... Then $45k goes a lot farther. Assume $4200 on groceries yearly, $1800 a year on gas(12k miles driven per year, 20 MPG, 600 gallons of gas per year $3 per gallon), $2400 a year on utilities, $5000 per year on phone and internet, $900 a year on streaming services, $2400 a year on full coverage auto insurance, $3600 a year on medical, $1500 a year homeowners insurance and you're not even at half yet. You're under $22k. That doesn't include property taxes but you're probably good there. And of course this is based off of today's numbers. But it's just to illustrate that the money goes a lot farther when your debt is gone. Plus I just realized I did groceries and phone/internet for two people. Assuming that it's you and a spouse each pulling $45k from retirement yearly and you're doing really well.
An electric car charge by a coal plant is still less emissions than a vehicle that gets 38mpg. In most places the average is like 60-70 MPG.
Even if your local power plant was coal, EV charging emits as much as a 38MPG vehicle. In most places its like 70-80, and if you have renewable energy like hydro and wind it's like 200 mpg. This stuff has been debunked like 10 years ago, but bald men with sunglasses profile pics on facebook keep parroting it.
I would assume in Toronto this probably a few. I was more talking about electric vehicles though. I don't know enough about the environmental nature of crypto versus classic financial systems to comment on that. I was more talking EV versus gas. Where I live like I said I get the energy and CO2 equivalent of about 1550 MPG. So roughly about 500 times better than the average car. Would crypto be 500 times less energy intensive or less CO2 intensive then normal Banks, I don't know? It's definitely a good topic of discussion
I love crypto and Tesla, and this statement makes no sense to me. In the case of cars we are replacing burning oil with electricity, which increases the efficiency of cars dramatically. Tesla model 3 is equal to over 100 MPG, around 3x better. There is no better technical solution available. Bitcoin takes the power of an entire country due to PoW, even through there are already viable options to fix the problem like PoS. As a community everyone should be pressuring the developers of these projects to move to the most efficient solution.
Was just my take but it could mean that if people recognise that there's a bunch of cars on the road that only get 5MPG and that also perceived to be a bad thing, theres potential incentive for innovation in the field of cars that perform better? I still dislike the energy consumption and avoid pow coins despite potential returns but hope that somethjbg good comes out of them
That's akin to saying "It's a good thing that my car only gets 5 MPG because it incentivizes people to make better cars." No, better cars already exist, you just chose to buy a shitty car that gets 5 MPG.
Model 3 has an equivalent MPG of 134, which is 4 times more efficient than a typical internal combustion sedan. So no, it's not useless for the environment. Fuel and maintenance costs are also far cheaper and over 10 years it cost competes with a Honda Accord.
Yeah it’s actually funny how the new M3s kind of copied the Alfa front end. Mechanical issues are ehh nobody really knows, lots of it has to do with maintenance and then it’s just a toss up. The F10 was known to burn oil like most Germans but mine has no issue with that, could be the maintenance could just be luck. E60 v10 was a beast but that thing is so unreliable and pretty damn sluggish because it only had like 390 torque. Owned 2 E60s with the SMG trans and both went to shit, the F10 has a DCT and shifts like butter... that is until you try to drive it in M mode at slow speed. Gotta drive in comfort around town LOL. Fuel efficiency is a joke in the F10, normal driving without beating the car it’ll get 15MPG. I didn’t buy the car for fuel efficiency but the averages are lies after all it’s a V8. All in all the car hasn’t had any mechanical issues it’s 15.7k on the dot with oil and filter change every 2-3k miles.
>There is a non-zero chance that actively transacting in a PoW coin may cause some legal issues with those carbon credits I am going to say this is a zero chance.The credit is based on the car's MPG, not the companies balance sheet. End if story. This myth needs to stop being spread.
>was pressured to drop Bitcoin due to the risk of losing Government Credits for being Green I keep seeing this thrown around, but no one says what the credit they would be losing is. Do you know what it is? Because as far as I know their credits are based as their car's MPG, not their company's asset portfolio.
ya fool, but get this, power plants are more efficient per volume of fuel, so in the end a tesla might be the equivilent to 200+ MPG when it comes to using non-renewable energy to create grid electricity. idk, not real numbers, but just my perspective. fundamentally this is how it could be looked at.
I'm thinking Lucid Air next year if they actually go into production. I have a boring boring but paid off hybrid car now. Looking at a motorcycle now. Good MPG and I used to ride years ago but moved to NYC and it got too dangerous. Now I'm out in Oregon and summers here are made for riding.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of terms. There is a difference between what individual miners use, and what the total energy usage is. What I find is 75% of miners use renewable, but the 25% that don't are doing more of the work, so that means overall the % of renewable energy used is way lower then 75%. For example is 3 people drive an ev and one person drives a car with terrible MPG. You can say 75% of drivers use no direct emissions, but then also say those 4 drivers have worse emissions then 4 people who all drive vehicles with high MPG. To me is seems like the 25% of miners who don't use renewable are doing way more of the proof of work then the other 75%.
If you charge an electric car off a portable petrol generator you can get MPG equivalent to a fairly efficient petrol car, and most energy grids are more green than a portable generator. Of the arguments against electric cars this is the weakest one. The lithium mining is a stronger argument. But still, studies show that after something like 20 or 30 thousand miles, a electric and petrol car have used the "same" resources. Beyond that the electric becomes better for the environment.
You're fucking stupid. I repeated the same immature question you asked me is all. Your IQ must be as high as the MPG of a Hummer. You asked someone why they don't buy straight BTC and are buying "China supporting coins" instead. Obviously You're too dense to know most BTC is mined in China.
> Even with the car charged from the grid, it's still more energy-efficient & less total emissions than ICE vehicles, this used to be listed on Tesla's website, I can't find it now. (I think the only exception is China) > Making the battery itself has an upfront energy cost, but since you're creating less emissions while you drive, you break even after about 10,000 or 20,000 miles (Was said by JB Straubel during a talk) > It takes more energy to refine oil into gasoline, than it does to simply use that energy to drive the car. So as soon as you fill up your gas tank, you've already used more energy than a Tesla, even if you drive zero miles. > small 2kWh solar setup that will offset ALL your Tesla's energy usage, infinity MPG -https://www.anapode.com/products/8panel_Complete_Solar_Panel_Module_Kit_DIY
Not just inflated, they're obviously fake. For context, their $25,000 unit would be five times faster at mining ETH than the unreleased E9 ASIC, at 300W less. It's like if I was trying to sell you a 1500HP Honda Civic that gets 45MPG.
Oddly specific... Also highly accurate. I rented a Charger in Las Vegas once and that sucker got 7 MPG.
MPG did this on Ardor years ago.