anyway..
back to the topic

.. where were we
oh yea "bitcoin energy disaster"

debunked:
1. if we remained solomining GPU. the electric combined from residents in their basements in non-renewable area's would he higher than the current state where most ASIC farms have great deals with renewable electric companies which the asic farms set up in those regions as far back as 2014

2. if asics themselves were not invented. then the watts/hash would be far far worse
asics evolve to be more efficient in power/watt

Nic Carter is again on the Environmental side of Bitcoin with this new article for Bitcoin Magazine:


THE BITCOIN ENERGY DEBATE IS A MODERN REPRISE OF THE GOLD RESOURCE COST DEBATE



The approach is interesting. He recalls us that many economists demonstrated that mining gold has a cost, but this cost is what preserves the system to grow out of control, events that also bears huge, hidden costs:


A different, more intriguing approach to the question, taking the analogy with gold to a different point.
Very interesting.

People, does anyone have $ 60 billion? ^{[we will talk about the project of a penzhinskaya tidal power plant with a capacity of 100 GW]} I just look at the capitalization of BTC, and I understand that this is not so much money for a project of such a scale ... the point is that the implementation of this utopian idea would forever put an end to the "anti-ecological" discussions. There is one unique place on our planet where the sea level varies ±15 meters, and this is the ideal place to build a tidal power plant.

This project was developed a very long time ago, but they did not start implementation, since the catch is that it needs a colossal infrastructure (as opposed to mining farms, which can be installed on site). Is your mining equipment outdated? No problem, as can switch to liquid hydrogen production (Elon Musk would have turned over in his coffin if he was dead and if the key players in the Bitcoin industry would sell him fuel for Bitcoins). Tell me, am I not a psychopath?

Bitcoin is not an environmental disaster. Before it comes to Bitcoin, there are so many things that are really detrimental to the environment. People and companies are really aware of this actually. But they still insist on accusing Bitcoin of being the most harmful thing for the environment.

For example, it's been proved that banks are consuming too much energy (even more than Bitcoin) and really harmful for the environment also. But people don't want to mention it. They are only aiming to blame Bitcoin for something. Why are people like this?  Do they still have problems on absorbing cryptocurrencies?  Are they afraid of Bitcoin for real?

This, one line that says it all!

The consumption of the bitcoin network is a direct result of its value, and it's the same in every single sector of the economy. Gold mining emissions will drop to 1% of what they are if gold drops to 17/ounce, same with oil when oil went down wells closed, emissions decreased if silver would quadruple in times silver mining will consume more energy than ever, every single thing has a price and the demand for it will dictate how much you can spend on it. Simple as this!

The problem is not how much energy is spent and how much of it is clean or not, poeple are giving this process reasons of existence, just like poeple want to play games or they want to pay 100$ a day to light their houses on Christmas, comparing it makes no sense, it's a choice of a few or the choice of many. If only 10 poeple would celebrate Christmas the energy spent would be under an Mwh, if nobody would be using Bitcoin the energy spent would be as much as a laptop or two running. That's the only parallel you need to draw between two human activities, nothing else.

Comparisons of things that don't have the same purpose and achieve the same goal are meaningless, gaming and Christmas lights, gold mining and agriculture, public transport, and hospitals, btw hospitals in the US consumed 200TWh, how can we compare this consumption to anything else? Or rather than how does, anyone dare to compare it? The thing is people should stop comparing things, I'm tired of all the things like you see the banking sector consumers more energy....it was funny when bitcoin was at 5twh/year, started to be less funny at 50twh, at 120twh is becoming also ridiculous, what are we going to do if Bitmain fixes its chip supply problem and the price per BTC hits 300k?

We will need to change the rhetoric to finally point out what matters, what Bitcoin achieves and the trust in it that gives its value, nothing else!


Mining is a 24/7 business, that's why there are no miners mining only on solar while not being connected to the grid for night time.
The same will be with this plant, nobody will want to mine it there even if you give them 2 cents energy, without another power source to keep them running nonstop, and with the batteries cost blowing the price higher than traditional power it won't attract anybody.

To dispel the myth about ecosystem change, just look at the diagram that I published above ... What I mean is that this type of power plant is absolutely safe, since the construction of the dam is necessary for the installation of turbines, and not for the retention of water masses (in the presence of a dam, the water level in the water area will change in the same way as if it changed during the ebb and flow without the dam). The daily carrying capacity of the dam is 500 cubic kilometers, the same amount of water as the Amazon River carries in 25 days, ("now imagine the 25-day energy of the Amazon compressed into 24 hours").

+ I want to add that I indicated that this is a utopian project, since it is necessary to invest tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure. Due to the fact that within a radius of several hundred kilometers there are no cities or power grids through which this electricity could be transmitted. It is for this reason that I said that it is advisable to install a mining giga-farm locally. And by the way, power generation happens 24 hours a day ... which is perfect for mining.

But the main thing that you guys missed is that I am not suggesting that miners buy this clean electricity ... the idea is to invest in the construction of this project by adding mining power to it (thereby ensuring energy-efficient mining of Bitcoins for 50 or 100 years). I will repeat the above .... in case of obsolescence of mining equipment or in case of excess electricity, ("after all, the power of this power plant is equivalent to the power of 25 nuclear power plants") can switch to the production of liquid hydrogen. This approach will make this object a means of pressure on Elon Musk's space program.

Mining is paid for their security services the creation of new bitcoins and the processing of transactions mining provides services like any business. As long as there is a market for bitcoin some people will be willing to pay for electricity in bitcoin mines Whether mining or power is wasted is just a matter of vision for those who understand the benefits of bitcoin it is very clear why the power value of using bitcoins is good. The cryptocurrency industry is committed to contributing to the urgent environmental fight the crypto community bitcoin makes life easier and better for many people.

Bitcoin Magazine again on Bitcoin mining and solar energy:

IS SOLAR POWER A GOOD FIT FOR BITCOIN MINING?



There is an interesting section about the fact that Solar Power could even be considered a green source, as many solar power panels are manufactered in China, ina very polluting way.

I suppose my knowledge in this matter is not very different from yours, so I will allow myself to argue with you ... As I already said, Penzhinskaya Lip is the only place on our planet where gravitational forces change the water level twice a day with the strongest amplitude (although, depending on the orbit of the Moon, there will still be energy loss not exceeding 25%, but this is compensated by a very high current speed). And precisely due to the fact that in this bay, there is a very large difference between the highest and lowest point, ebb and flow currents can be used for the constant generation of electricity, the question is only reduced to the presence of two alternately operating systems _[1].

  I support your opinion that the "non-environmentally friendly" bitcoin mining is nothing more than another excuse for trying to worsen the image of bitcoin as a decentralized asset beyond the control of the authorities and regulators.