This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Green energy is still not free energy.
Every amout of green energy a crypto miner uses is less green energy for everything else. You take 3% (country consumption) of capacity from the green grid, you must up at least 3% the production in existing coal plants.
A law in which country? What would you do if someone in a different country doesn't want to follow that?
just ask the president of the world nicely to make the rule
Would be nice, but we haven't yet achieved global unity.
Then miners would siphon off renewable energy and other more polluting sources would be used to power the remainder.
They’re not gonna build more green power supply just to help out crypto miners.
They would if we cut them off from the grid. All Bitcoin does now is raise electricity bills. Let them build solar farms and buy batteries if they insist on mining something useless to 99% of humanity.
You think these clowns are going to build anything? They’re just leeches trying to make money by doing nothing other than letting computers run.
No, but crypto miners could fund a boom in green energy industry if they bought their own panels, wind turbines, battery banks, etc.
They could. But they won’t.
You think a bunch of people Mining crypto for greed are gonna altruistically buy green energy?
Not altruistically, but if laws were made and enforced to where green energy was the most financially rewarding way to power their mining rigs, they'd do it.
If you mean their own green energy that they have to buy, set up, and maintain on their own, then sure. Force them off grid and bring enormous financial consequences if they pollute to make their energy
They would just set up in Kazakhstan or something. How does that help? There's no way everyone in the world passes the same law
Problem is energy from the grid is just energy. You'd get crypto companies buying "green" energy leaving the dirty enegery for everyone else. It'd be meaningless.
Ultimately crypto mining is a pointless industry. It benefits the miners financially but doesn't produce anything meaningful, while expending huge amounts of energy and polluting the world as a result. It's also an extremely energy wasteful way to run the infrastructure needed to maintain crypto currencies.
It wouldn't matter if we were in some Nuclear fusion powered utopia with an abundance of energy. But we're not - we're in the middle of a climate crisis and desperately trying to move over to green energy. Growing demands for energy for crypto is countering that.
The real solution is to tax crypto mining - for example tax then on every kWh they use. Regions that entice crypto operations in are chasing fools gold - the costs out weight any local economic benefits of new data centres being built.
While being right about crypto being meaningless for some people (I guess there are people valuing hope in decentralized monetary system, even if it is misplaced.), you failed to mention that most of other industries are equally meaningless and good part of them are even harmful: fashion, fast food, industrial food, banking - in a way we have it, cars in current form(no need for this huge tanks)...
In comparation crypto is just wasteful and isn't harming anyone.
It is a waste of energy either way which could have been used for actual useful purposes. So no, that is not a helpful solution.
Like a carbon tax? We've been talking about that for years.
They would get around that with green washing the way a lot of companies are these days.
It all depends on the details, but power is a local produced good and is not something that can be escaped with laws that want to stop carbon emissions.
You say that like the laws we have right now against carbon emissions are working. I get what you're saying but the laws probably need a re-write.
The current laws most certainly do not work. The fact that they don't work is a willing failure on the part of the lawmakers.
It could help a bit, but I think then there would just be less green energy available for the other applications.
Why not use that energy for something useful?
Generally speaking, pollution etc. is what economists call "external cost". It should be penalized in some way, and the usual tool is taxation. It's not just AI and Crypto that should pay for non-green energy, but everyone. It's massively simpler that way too, and massively simpler = harder to circumvent and manipulate.
Simplicity's bad side in this is that it's difficult to slap a "correct price" on pollution. I.e. difficult to calculate how much actual damage they're causing.
In actual world, thanks to rampant corporatism and other forms of fuckery, what we're actually doing is subsidizing these fuels, which is of course completely ass-backwards. Just removing the subsidies would already help a lot, but actually penalizing those energy forms even just a little would be huge.
Why not just pass a law that no one can generate electricity except from green sources? It sounds so easy when I put it like that.
Are you thinking that sprinkling the buzzwords "AI" and "Crypto" on an "only green energy" kind of provision would allow lawmakers to leverage hype to cut through right-wing resistence to green energy mandates in a way that a more blanket (or even just not-Crypto/AI-focused) provision couldn't?
Why not just pass a law that no one can generate electricity except from green sources? It sounds so easy when I put it like that.
Um - those laws have been passed in many countries. Usually with a reasonable approach such as "you can continue operating the coal plants that were already built, but no more can be built".
What's actually happening around the world though is those plants are becoming too expensive to run, so they're shutting down even if they are allowed to continue to operate. Renewable power is just cheaper.
About two thirds of global electricity production is zero emission now and it'll be around 95% in a 25 years or so.
Source (note: this is a "renewables" article, not a "zero emission" article. Some non-renewable energy produces zero emissions and there's not expected to be much movement on that in the foreseeable future): https://renewablesnow.com/news/renewables-produce-85-of-global-power-nearly-50-of-energy-in-2050-582235/
Um - those laws have been passed in many countries.
Yeah, I know. I just wondered what putting a "but only for AI and crypto applications" as OP said added to the conversation.
In civilized places, e.g. not the U.S. (it's cool, I'm American), where it's not a struggle to get any environmental legislation passed, adding "AI and crypto" to the conversation is unnecessary. In the U.S. where the minority of conspiracy theorists get what they want through cheating, I doubt adding AI and crypto to the conversation is going to help any.
Force this unnecessary tech bullshit to invest in becoming self-sufficient through green energy
Too much
T - double O. It's a different word.
Although "so much" would probably be a better fit anyway
I actually meant to say so instead of to, but it ended up working out
Fixed it
Fair enough. I didn't assume that because S & T are separated on the keyboard. Autocorrect can do weird stuff though.
There is no such thing as "green" energy, all energy has an environmental extraction/capture cost. Crypto has insane per user power usage, AI isn't quite as bad but it's still much higher than normal websearch. Both should be used sparingly in cases where they actually make sense.
Tax the greenhouse effect from the energy production, UBI to give people the money to afford what they need.
Trying to moralize every action on the market is a losing game though. I mean is this, the fediverse, worth the energy, are games, streaming, plant lights for your indoor plants?
It's better to leave that to be individuals choices but make sure that the cost of the consequences are on the individual making the choices.
Only proof of work crypto currencies require a ton of energy and the only way it's profitable is by buying energy that would otherwise be wasted like methane flaring or excess renewable generation.
Something topic-adjacent is going down in BC, Canada right now.
We had a large timber company that branched out into crypto mining, augmented with solar. They made an absolute killing with this pivot, and wanted to expand. But need a metric fuck-ton of electricity. The local utility company denied them, citing their own issues with keeping up with demand in the near future. The timber company sued them, and I think it settled to this:
Super interesting story - thanks for sharing. Helps getting perspective:
> the data centres proposed by Conifex would have consumed 2.5 million
> megawatt-hours of electricity a year. That’s enough to power and heat
> more than 570,000 apartments
I would say this is a dangerous slope to go down, since electricity is just electricity and IMO shouldn't matter how it's used as long as it's payed for. It's like the Net Neutrality situation where it shouldn't matter how/what data is being transmitted through their network shouldn't be discriminated for/against as long as it's getting payed for.
The bigger operations already are using so called green energy. There are large operations in the north west where hydro is abundant and cheap.
This might be a few years off but I am considering setting up a farm where I am. We are planning on a very large solar installation at some point in the near future and we will probably have way more supply than we can use. I wouldn't mine btc but running some other algo hardware and throwing it at nicehash or other smart pools would probably be a good use of that power assuming I can get the hardware cheap enough.
No one with any working braincells is running larger than at home operations on standard power costs in most of the country. My state has some of the lowest cost power in the US and it's still not profitable to mine most coins and it doesn't get much better with commercial rates. I'd also bet that the larger AI farms will also do what they can to run on solar, wind, etc so that they pay as little as possible for power.
That would actually not do anything.
So there’s this stupid thing called carbon capture right? It’s where instead of putting money into useful things there’s these companies that use a lot of resources on machines that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. The companies claim that they use “green” energy, but it doesn’t. As earmarked as that may be these machines still just use grid energy, which still uses fossil fuels. All it does is take some capacity to replace fossil fuels from green energy.
You mean "carbon offset", not "carbon capture". Carbon capture is where you extract carbon out of the air and make concrete or something else out of it. Capture isn't widely done but likely will be soon.
Carbon offsets are very useful. They paid for a sizeable portion of the solar installation on my home for example. Which has cut my household power emissions by about two thirds and that's with us selling about 80% of the generated power to the grid (where it reduces emissions for other households).
Who defines "too much"?
"to much"
First, you need to separate power hungry crypto from AI, one provides a real benefit while the other is a useless fiat that can be accomplished without dumping gigawatts down the drain. If you want to trade crypto that’s fine, just don’t use a vulgar amount of society’s power to do it.
Which is which ?
We really need to grow past this idea that just because you don't personally use or like a thing that it is useless. Who are you to get to decide what has value and what doesn't? If there wasn't value, no-one would buy or use it. The unspoken part of this argument that gets repeated so often is that the reasons people are interested in the thing are reasons associated with groups you've been told very confidently don't matter. Lack of control from the government? Only a nasty conservative/libertarian hick who "don't like no GuBmint" would want something like that. Anonymity/privacy reasons (I know, only for for certain coins)? Only a scammer would want that, why care about privacy if you have nothing to hide?
None of this is even promoting or saying I'm pro crypto, just saying these are poor arguments.
As an example, as someone who doesn't follow any sports whatsoever, I could argue the amount of resources and travel for this big football game coming up are vulgar. I mean come on, I don't care about this game so why should anyone else be allowed to use resources on it?
Inevitably, you will come back and say but sports offers X, Y, and Z real benefits. If I were to continue the analogy of the inverted argument, the next argument is ALWAYS: "Yes, true, but it's not the absolute best or most efficient at X, Y, or Z so therefore that doesn't count". It could very well be argued that any benefits coming from the super bowl could be done in cheaper, more environmentally friendly ways. Do we cancel this game then? Is anyone who is interested in it a POS?
This was an example, I actually realize there are tons of benefits to sports even though I don't get much at all out of it personally. But it's part of becoming a well adjusted person to realize people are going to have different values and I don't get to decide what is important to them, or that because they are part of an out group their interests and values don't matter.
To make one more example, if someone said they put their life savings in gold in their safe to prep for some doomsday scenario, I certainly wouldn't agree at all that it was a good choice. A fairly objective case could be made that it is in fact the wrong/bad decision, however I still don't get to decide their values don't matter just because I don't agree with them, or more importantly because Reddit/Lemmy folks told me confidently that those values only belong to preppers/conservatives/libertarians/etc etc and also that those are bad people.
