Ok, but if that's the article's argument it really makes no sense, no? How would the author propose harvesting these various losses to mine cryptocoins?
It's a really weird take if that's what the author is saying.
That's what the diagram copied from Lawrence Livermore National Labs says about rejected heat. What the article author is trying to say is something else entirely.
It's mostly these sentences (in relation to that diagram) that I really fail to understand:
>If Bitcoin used only wasted energy it would consume >2/3rds of the energy of the planet.
>This is why hand-wringing about Bitcoin’s energy use is so frustrating. Bitcoin is pointing at the moon and people are yelling at its finger. The self-congratulatory ignorance I see in this debate is unreal.
I don't get what it means or what point the author tries to make here.
The best I can guess is that the author is mixing up load balancing through reserve energy and efficiency losses. The amount that is reserved for load balancing is also not anywhere near the size they are talking about.
Actual numbers for coal, oil, and nuclear plants run lower, maybe 40%. The most efficient natural gas plants come close, around 60%, by running at higher temperatures and avoiding conversion to steam.[1]
[1] https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-comp...