• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

a_unique_person said:
China will also be cracking down on miners because the last thing China needs is to have to build power stations to run mining.
Click to expand...

China does this during every Bull run. I remember this happening in 2013, 2017. I think it's to lower the price for a buy back. Most mining takes place in China. After they sell their coins at the top they need to buy back in at a discount. Why would the Chinese Government come out against Bitcoin during Bull runs every time? Odd. Especially since they never do anything. It's just the same old song and dance once again. I think I know why but I have no evidence to support my opinion.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You are the one claiming it would be more efficient to burn coal in a car than a power station.
You should support it.
Click to expand...

I do. Any time you convert one form of energy to another there are always losses in efficiency. You can't get out more than you put in.

Captain_Swoop said:
Where does science 'prove' what you are saying is true?

More claims?
Click to expand...

I cannot take the credit for the laws of thermodynamics and energy conversions. And those are not "claims" they're laws.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I know you need just one of those graphic cards to play a game but I need twelve of them to generate a bunch of math problems so I can mine a fake currency named after a ten year old internet meme that can be instantly devalued by a single tweet and is also killing the planet.
Click to expand...

Buy a humvee, take up a new and exciting career in commercial whaling and end your relationship with cryptocurrency and the Earth will thank you for it.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I do. Any time you convert one form of energy to another there are always losses in efficiency. You can't get out more than you put in.
Click to expand...

True, but two conversions at, say, 90% efficiency is more efficient than a single conversion at, say, 50% efficiency.

A "regular" coal-fired electricity plant is 32%-35% efficient at turning the energy from coal into electricity (there are more advanced plants which claim to be up to 45% efficient but they are few and far between).

Transmission losses and losses from the storage and drivetrain from an electric vehicle are low, around 10%, so an electric car running from electricity generated from a conventional coal-fired plant is around 30% efficient. In the UK these days hardly any electricity is generated from coal. Instead we have less inefficient gas plants, renewables and nuclear but let's pretend that all electricity comes from coal.

Coal-powered vehicles, whether they are steam engines or coal-fuelled turbines are far less than 30% efficient. Even though there is a single conversion, it's far more inefficient.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
I cannot take the credit for the laws of thermodynamics and energy conversions. And those are not "claims" they're laws.
Click to expand...

You also don't really understand them.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I do. Any time you convert one form of energy to another there are always losses in efficiency. You can't get out more than you put in.



I cannot take the credit for the laws of thermodynamics and energy conversions. And those are not "claims" they're laws.
Click to expand...

Show us your figures then.
 
The Don said:
True, but two conversions at, say, 90% efficiency is more efficient than a single conversion at, say, 50% efficiency.

A "regular" coal-fired electricity plant is 32%-35% efficient at turning the energy from coal into electricity (there are more advanced plants which claim to be up to 45% efficient but they are few and far between).

Transmission losses and losses from the storage and drivetrain from an electric vehicle are low, around 10%, so an electric car running from electricity generated from a conventional coal-fired plant is around 30% efficient. In the UK these days hardly any electricity is generated from coal. Instead we have less inefficient gas plants, renewables and nuclear but let's pretend that all electricity comes from coal.

Coal-powered vehicles, whether they are steam engines or coal-fuelled turbines are far less than 30% efficient. Even though there is a single conversion, it's far more inefficient.



You also don't really understand them.
Click to expand...

Let's start with 33% efficiency maintained at the power station for our new electricity. A loss of 5 to 6% due to heat transmission lines knocks our efficiency of our new electricity down to 28%.

Now we must convert AC into DC to charge the battery in our Tesla. A typical Tesla charger averages between 85% to 95% efficiency depending on if it's connected to 120V or 240V. Let's average it out to 90% to convert AC into DC for the batteries. Our new electricity produced by coal is now down to 18% efficiency but wait, there's more. The Tesla claims to be up to 90% percent efficient in converting electricity from the grid to the road. This is a bit hard to swallow and the actual figure is likely somewhere in the 70's but lets give it to them the claimed 90% efficiency. OK now our new electricity produced at the coal fired plant is down to 8%.

I think the Coalsmobile was more efficient that 8%. I have no proof to show it as the documentation is missing but turbine engines are at least as efficient as modern piston engines and they claim to be bumping around 40%.


Yes Jessica, there is a Thermodynamics Clause.



Captain_Swoop said:
Show us your figures then.
Click to expand...

Not on the first date.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Let's start with 33% efficiency maintained at the power station for our new electricity

... stuff ...

OK now our new electricity produced at the coal fired plant is down to 8%.
Click to expand...

Never mind thermodynamics, you just failed basic maths.

You need to check your calculations. At each step - ask yourself - 90% of of what?
 
Well you can't get your bitcoin locked out, except losing your passwordm in which case the money is gone.
But you can get your exchange account locked out. And as I mentioned before, during panic times, exchanges are usually down anyway. Bitcoin itself will process just fine because of its decentralized nature. Conversion to fiat not so much.
 
With summer coming up, I'm working on a new crypto that derives it's value somehow from running the air conditioner full blast while keeping all the doors and windows open.

Still needs some development. I got the part about wasteful energy usage doing pointless work, but I still need to figure out the computery bits. I'm gonna epoxy some chips to the side of my hvac unit and see if that helps.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
Friend of mine who's low-key mining says it's actually twice as profitable as yesterday, even after price correction.
If it's really caused by China banning crypto, Chinese farms will close. That would mean mining outside China will be more profitable.
Click to expand...

I see nothing in the new restrictions would force bitcoin mines to close. They can still mine bitcoin for export. The Chinese government has recommended against speculating on bitcoin but hasn't prohibited it. The only thing it really effects is purchases, and legal purchases are not a big factor for bitcoin.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Let's start with 33% efficiency maintained at the power station for our new electricity. A loss of 5 to 6% due to heat transmission lines knocks our efficiency of our new electricity down to 28%.

Now we must convert AC into DC to charge the battery in our Tesla. A typical Tesla charger averages between 85% to 95% efficiency depending on if it's connected to 120V or 240V. Let's average it out to 90% to convert AC into DC for the batteries. Our new electricity produced by coal is now down to 18% efficiency
Click to expand...

Your math is wrong. 33% power plant efficiency with 95% transmission efficiency and 90% charge efficiency results in ~28% efficiency. This is already higher than gasoline powered internal combustion engines. Furthermore most power plants are natural gas and most of those are ~60% efficient so electric vehicles are ~50% efficient, gasoline powered internal combustion is typically about 20% -30% and a coal powered car would likely be under 5%.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The Tesla claims to be up to 90% percent efficient in converting electricity from the grid to the road. This is a bit hard to
Click to expand...

Why is that “hard to swallow”? Electric motors with efficiency in the high 90’s are commonplace and other losses are not egregious. Furthermore you also have features like regenerative breaking that reclaims energy that has already been used and would otherwise be lost.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think the Coalsmobile was more efficient that 8%. I have no proof to show it as the documentation is missing but turbine engines are at least as efficient as modern piston engines and they claim to be bumping around 40%.
Click to expand...



The Coalsmobile wasn’t turbine powered. Furthermore even if it was, the 40% efficiency would only apply when running the engine as near maximum power, something a car would almost never do.


Most people don’t consider it in efficiency calculations, but another issue with coal is that the amount of energy you get from burning it is typically lower than the energy you could get by extracting the uranium from it and using it to power a nuclear reactor. This energy is effectively lost when the coal burns.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
With summer coming up, I'm working on a new crypto that derives it's value somehow from running the air conditioner full blast while keeping all the doors and windows open.

Still needs some development. I got the part about wasteful energy usage doing pointless work, but I still need to figure out the computery bits. I'm gonna epoxy some chips to the side of my hvac unit and see if that helps.
Click to expand...

Just remember to power it with solar--that makes it not wasteful.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
With summer coming up, I'm working on a new crypto that derives it's value somehow from running the air conditioner full blast while keeping all the doors and windows open.

Still needs some development. I got the part about wasteful energy usage doing pointless work, but I still need to figure out the computery bits. I'm gonna epoxy some chips to the side of my hvac unit and see if that helps.
Click to expand...

Fantastic idea! I want in on this action! Let me know how I can get in on the ground floor and trade some of my fiat currency in exchange for cool coins
 
lomiller said:
Your math is wrong. 33% power plant efficiency with 95% transmission efficiency and 90% charge efficiency results in ~28% efficiency. This is already higher than gasoline powered internal combustion engines. Furthermore most power plants are natural gas and most of those are ~60% efficient so electric vehicles are ~50% efficient, gasoline powered internal combustion is typically about 20% -30% and a coal powered car would likely be under 5%.


Why is that “hard to swallow”? Electric motors with efficiency in the high 90’s are commonplace and other losses are not egregious. Furthermore you also have features like regenerative breaking that reclaims energy that has already been used and would otherwise be lost.





The Coalsmobile wasn’t turbine powered. Furthermore even if it was, the 40% efficiency would only apply when running the engine as near maximum power, something a car would almost never do.


Most people don’t consider it in efficiency calculations, but another issue with coal is that the amount of energy you get from burning it is typically lower than the energy you could get by extracting the uranium from it and using it to power a nuclear reactor. This energy is effectively lost when the coal burns.
Click to expand...

Also love that we are talking about transportation losses for the electricity but not for the coal. Anyone want to calculate the volume of lump coal that would need to be hauled around to equal the power stored in any given electric vehicle? And how do we get that to our coals mobile owner?

After we get the math corrected and then the thermodynamics then we will get to move on to actual engineering issues relating to turbines and automobiles that are referenced above.

Frankly, this looks like a thermo 101 question if engineering school were anything like law school. But it's not, so engineering profs would never think of stupid **** like this.
 
Worm said:
Never mind thermodynamics, you just failed basic maths.

You need to check your calculations. At each step - ask yourself - 90% of of what?
Click to expand...

My calculations are in referral to the electricity produced from coal as a fuel source. Each step we are still talking about that same electricity and the amount of loss of it during each conversion/transfer.

You don't get to add new electricity into the equation, a loss is a loss. Unless you can have Jesus miracle you up some new electricity to replace the losses I'm correct. Please elaborate if there is any other way, I'll read along eagerly and without insult.
 
lomiller said:
Your math is wrong. 33% power plant efficiency with 95% transmission efficiency and 90% charge efficiency results in ~28% efficiency. This is already higher than gasoline powered internal combustion engines. Furthermore most power plants are natural gas and most of those are ~60% efficient so electric vehicles are ~50% efficient, gasoline powered internal combustion is typically about 20% -30% and a coal powered car would likely be under 5%.


Why is that “hard to swallow”? Electric motors with efficiency in the high 90’s are commonplace and other losses are not egregious. Furthermore you also have features like regenerative breaking that reclaims energy that has already been used and would otherwise be lost.





The Coalsmobile wasn’t turbine powered. Furthermore even if it was, the 40% efficiency would only apply when running the engine as near maximum power, something a car would almost never do.


Most people don’t consider it in efficiency calculations, but another issue with coal is that the amount of energy you get from burning it is typically lower than the energy you could get by extracting the uranium from it and using it to power a nuclear reactor. This energy is effectively lost when the coal burns.
Click to expand...

In the end we are talking about an x amount of produced electricity and the amount of losses during each phase of transfer and conversion.

Yes, the Coaldsmobile was powered by a turbine engine. It used powdered coal as fuel. This was not a steam turbine, but it was a turbine engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom