News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Blockchain Is a Dark Forest.

Re:The Blockchain Is a Dark Forest by jodrellblank on Sunday March 21, 2021 @02:30PM (#26532660)
How does so much energy from petroleum go into "transportation" and then into "rejected energy"? Is the small text at the bottom saying effectively that transportation is an inefficient use of petroleum energy? If so that makes it a weird argument to suggest that Bitcoin is in some way making use of that 22% wasted transportation contribution.

Won't Bitcoin mining show up as part of use used residential and commercial electricity?

And, wouldn't "less coal and natural gas burned" be more desirable than "using that to mine Bitcoin" and sneering about "handwringing"?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Blockchain Is a Dark Forest by imtringued on Sunday March 21, 2021 @03:49PM (#26533314)
The graph is very confusing. Rejected energy is basically thermal loss, it's completely unavoidable without switching to EVs powered by renewables.

Transportation is inefficient because ICE engines need to run at lots of different RPM ranges. Hybrid cars have more efficient engines because the engine can run at the most efficient RPM. EVs only have charging and battery losses.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Blockchain Is a Dark Forest by kristjansson on Sunday March 21, 2021 @02:58PM (#26532906)
It’s a terrible point that the graphic doesn’t support in the slightest.

But to answer your question: IC engines are energetically inefficient - at best a large fraction of the input potential energy escapes as heat, and actual car engines are worse than ideal.

[ Parent | on HN ]