Miscellaneous Tech News
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
At least one country is doing the right thing. Mining crypto is just a waste of energy.
I wonder if there is a way to keep crypto currency without the mining portion? Of course you still need the blockchain updated... and that of course will use power... and if that's only done by big corporations, then it's no more decentralized than other cash at that point (of course that's not correct, but I can't think of how to word it now).
No idea, but until we build Dyson Swarm around the Sun, for close to unlimited energy, all crypto should just be banned. Last I heard crypto mining energy consumption overtook entire country of Argentina. Let that sink in. All that energy to produce... nothing. We could be using that to produce antimatter for example
-
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
At least one country is doing the right thing. Mining crypto is just a waste of energy.
I wonder if there is a way to keep crypto currency without the mining portion? Of course you still need the blockchain updated... and that of course will use power... and if that's only done by big corporations, then it's no more decentralized than other cash at that point (of course that's not correct, but I can't think of how to word it now).
No idea, but until we build Dyson Swarm around the Sun, for close to unlimited energy, all crypto should just be banned. Last I heard crypto mining energy consumption overtook entire country of Argentina. Let that sink in. All that energy to produce... nothing. We could be using that to produce antimatter for example
What's a Dyson Swarm?
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
At least one country is doing the right thing. Mining crypto is just a waste of energy.
I wonder if there is a way to keep crypto currency without the mining portion? Of course you still need the blockchain updated... and that of course will use power... and if that's only done by big corporations, then it's no more decentralized than other cash at that point (of course that's not correct, but I can't think of how to word it now).
No idea, but until we build Dyson Swarm around the Sun, for close to unlimited energy, all crypto should just be banned. Last I heard crypto mining energy consumption overtook entire country of Argentina. Let that sink in. All that energy to produce... nothing. We could be using that to produce antimatter for example
What's a Dyson Swarm?
It's like Dyson Sphere, just not a solid sphere, as that simply would not work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_swarm -
Dyson Sphere was in one of Star Trek TNG episodes, where Scotty from original series made an appearance. Such structure would simply get destroyed by asteroid or a comet, so swarm is more plausible.
-
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Dyson Sphere was in one of Star Trek TNG episodes, where Scotty from original series made an appearance. Such structure would simply get destroyed by asteroid or a comet, so swarm is more plausible.
lol I knew was a dyson sphere was/is, never heard of a swarm before.
-
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
At least one country is doing the right thing. Mining crypto is just a waste of energy.
It sounds more like an excuse, to ban crypto to force everyone to use their government's currency, blaming it on electricity waste.
This will not go well.
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
At least one country is doing the right thing. Mining crypto is just a waste of energy.
It sounds more like an excuse, to ban crypto to force everyone to use their government's currency, blaming it on electricity waste.
This will not go well.
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use, I completely agree with you - I see them more using this as a power play to keep their own currency in control.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use,
Or you could support a move to more energy production through renewable resources.
There is plenty of energy available if governments stop listening to the legacy industry lobbyists and actually focus on helping renewables instead of legislating against it.
-
@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use,
Or you could support a move to more energy production through renewable resources.
There is plenty of energy available if governments stop listening to the legacy industry lobbyists and actually focus on helping renewables instead of legislating against it.
This is definitely true - but it's highly expensive to do so... and I don't want the government paying for. I want free enterprise to pay for it.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use,
Or you could support a move to more energy production through renewable resources.
There is plenty of energy available if governments stop listening to the legacy industry lobbyists and actually focus on helping renewables instead of legislating against it.
This is definitely true - but it's highly expensive to do so... and I don't want the government paying for. I want free enterprise to pay for it.
Generally more expensive in the wrong ways and far less reliable. Nuclear is really the best.
Renewable can work to meet energy demand if done right and with redundancy.
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Generally more expensive in the wrong ways and far less reliable. Nuclear is really the best.
Here here!
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost? -
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
but at what cost?
It depends on where you need the power and what is available.
Ideally, you'd have hydro-electric from a source such as a dam that didn't harm the environment. But that isn't doable everywhere. Wind and solar just suck, typically worse for the environment than others. Nuclear is by far the most reliable, efficient, and best for the environment. Your amount of waste by nuclear power over your entire lifetime, plus some, can fit inside a soda can under your desk.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
While I'm against the insane amount of energy needed for crypto's creation/use,
Or you could support a move to more energy production through renewable resources.
There is plenty of energy available if governments stop listening to the legacy industry lobbyists and actually focus on helping renewables instead of legislating against it.
This is definitely true - but it's highly expensive to do so... and I don't want the government paying for. I want free enterprise to pay for it.
It's not expensive, just stop giving legacy energy companies massive discounts and tax advantages like 70%cost accrual being allowed within the first year of drilling.
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@marcinozga said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
At least one country is doing the right thing. Mining crypto is just a waste of energy.
It sounds more like an excuse, to ban crypto to force everyone to use their government's currency, blaming it on electricity waste.
This will not go well.
Of course it is. But this actually has a good outcome for humanity.
-
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost?Done correctly, very little cost. So much fuel can be recycled that there is so little waste (this is assuming 100% of power production is switched to nuclear) that a single Falcon9 could launch it all into the sun.
A modern nuclear reactor is so much safer than what just about everyone thinks. Modern designs just won't melt down. I'm not sure about Australia, but in the US we haven't modernized much at all yet, so the nuclear currently in production are all basically Fukushima's waiting to happen
-
@travisdh1 Well yeah, but this is also because the nuclear systems that are in place were designed some decades ago. With relatively little consideration for a melt down.
If new nuclear was built it would be substantially safer to operate.
The issue with this is still the waste, that has to be stored for hundreds of years waiting for the half-lifes to diminish to 0.
Solar, wind and Thermal are the options that any reasonable person should be looking at, not nuclear - due to the waste product, and certainly not gas/oil/coal.
-
@travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost?Done correctly, very little cost. So much fuel can be recycled that there is so little waste (this is assuming 100% of power production is switched to nuclear) that a single Falcon9 could launch it all into the sun.
A modern nuclear reactor is so much safer than what just about everyone thinks. Modern designs just won't melt down. I'm not sure about Australia, but in the US we haven't modernized much at all yet, so the nuclear currently in production are all basically Fukushima's waiting to happen
I'm sure that's because of the cost - Plus the fact that it take 10+ years to get approval for this shit.
-
@travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nuclear is really the best.
It's not.
Perhaps it's the most efficient, but at what cost?Done correctly, very little cost. So much fuel can be recycled that there is so little waste (this is assuming 100% of power production is switched to nuclear) that a single Falcon9 could launch it all into the sun.
I'm wondering if the reason they don't do this, want to do this is because of the chances of the rocket blowing up, and now we have radioactive material spread over 100's if not 1000's of miles.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@travisdh1 Well yeah, but this is also because the nuclear systems that are in place were designed some decades ago. With relatively little consideration for a melt down.
If new nuclear was built it would be substantially safer to operate.
The issue with this is still the waste, that has to be stored for hundreds of years waiting for the half-lifes to diminish to 0.
Solar, wind and Thermal are the options that any reasonable person should be looking at, not nuclear - due to the waste product, and certainly not gas/oil/coal.
This is the problem our entire infrastructure suffers - we don't continue to pour the trillions into it needs to be updated - forget about maintained.
When we were first building roads/bridges, etc - we had nothing, so the benefit was massive, beyond massive! But updating, the benefits are much less in your face, getting people behind the spending of trillions is significantly harder because those people already see working things. it's not like we are building new floating highways that will provide some massive new function we don't have today, or reduce costs to the public at large with these upgrades.
So I can see the plight.
