[viraptor]

> I suspect bitcoin is simply not a big deal (at this point), so this entire issue is concern trolling.

Or people actually care. The fact there are existing, worse ways to use energy doesn't mean we shouldn't care about Bitcoin. For the same reason I'm composting, even though the nearby supermarket throws out way more packaged food than I'd ever buy.

[nonbel]

>"The fact there are existing, worse ways to use energy doesn't mean we shouldn't care about Bitcoin."

Its more like you are trying to catch rainwater in a strainer full of holes but are worried about a tiny pinhole in the side. So sure people may actually care about it, it just makes no sense and living your life that way is not a recipe for success.

For 2013 we have the estimate for total energy supply of 157,500 TWh/yr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Lets say bitcoin used 1000 TWh/yr worldwide (~15-30x what is estimated to use now). That'd work out to:

  100*1000/157,500 ~ 0.63 %

Currently its more like 0.02-0.04%. As someone else posted, just christmas lights in the US alone is ~6 TWh/yr (~.004%).

EDIT: That energy supply number is actually TPES, which ignores efficiency:

"Closely related to energy consumption is the concept of total primary energy supply (TPES), which - on a global level - is the sum of energy production minus storage changes. Since changes of energy storage over the year are minor, TPES values can be used as an estimator for energy consumption. However, TPES ignores conversion efficiency, overstating forms of energy with poor conversion efficiency (e.g. coal, gas and nuclear) and understating forms already accounted for in converted forms (e.g. photovoltaic or hydroelectricity)."

I suspect that if mining encourages even tiny innovations in power plant and grid efficiency it will have a net negative effect on energy waste. Apparently its that about 65% is lost due to powerplant, and 10% due to transmission/distribution, for ~75% total:

http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...

[viraptor]

Even with 0.04%, we have around 25 power plants [0] operating just for Bitcoin. You say it's tiny just like Christmas light, I say it we could get rid of PoW and improve/chill on Christmas lights we could reduce demand on 30 or so power plants and maybe not build new ones immediately. (Yes, average are bad, we're in a back of the napkin territory)

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/08/all-o...

[hcknwscommenter]

"if mining encourages even tiny innovations in power plant and grid efficiency "

But it won't. All the incentives to increase power plant and grid efficiency are already there. Moreover, as you state quite clearly, bitcoin energy use is a small proportion of energy usage.

[nonbel]

Mining is somewhat unique in that it doesnt really matter where it is done and it is very easy to tie profitability to electricity cost (since that is the main cost).

So I disagree, at least if it gets big enough to matter. I'd expect power plants, towns, etc to find it more worthwhile to invest in more efficient tech to attract the miners.

[viraptor]

Why would they want to attract? The article summarises it well: ignores local workforce, requires resources, can relocate quickly - it doesn't sound useful for the towns.

[nonbel]

Obviously to make money...

Towns with weird subsidizing schemes going on won't be able to take advantage unless they account for the new opportunity.

[hcknwscommenter]

Only if they tax the heck out of mining. How well do you think that is going to work?

[hcknwscommenter]

"Lets say bitcoin used 1000 TWh/yr worldwide (~15-30x what is estimated to use now). That'd work out to:

  100*1000/157,500 ~ 0.63 %

Currently its more like 0.02-0.04%. As someone else posted, just christmas lights in the US alone is ~6 TWh/yr (~.004%)."

So, THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE are no big deal? Okay.

[nonbel]

Sorry, not sure what you are referring to here. Ie, What three orders of magnitude?