• Retiring@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    63
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    172 TWh per year

    Your statement was as useful as the following: A VW Polo car costumes 3000 liters of fuel.

    *Edit: Downvote me all you want 😂 if I am right I am right.

    • brsrklf@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      In 2023, Microsoft and Google consumed 48 TWh of electricity (24 TWh each).

      Your point?

      The data in the article was for one year. This is the same unit.

      • Retiring@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The comment was 172TWh without specifying a timeframe whatsoever. Is it a year? Is it a day? A month?

        It was about the comment about bitcoin, not the post itself.

        • brsrklf@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s the same timeframe as the one used in the article, and sure, they could have made it explicit again, but implicitly it makes sense because it’s the one that’s useful for a direct comparison.

          Turns out, the implicit timeframe that should be clear after reading the article was the right one, and it’s pretty damning for bitcoin as is. So again, I am not sure what point you want to make.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m on the side of [email protected] here, since I read the comments before the article. Without the articles’ context I had no idea if this meant all-time usage, per year, or per month.

            Since the link is right there though, which says per year, it’s really not a huge deal.

      • Retiring@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes it is. But your comment still doesn’t make sense until you add “per year”.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      So, is Watt-hours/unit-time no longer a meaningful unit?

      Because, if so, you better tell every power company I’ve had, because that’s how they’ve billed me.

      • Retiring@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        WattHours is a unit of work. If you say that bitcoin uses x amount of Wh it doesn’t say shit about how much it actually consumes. Because you don’t say in what amount of time Bitcoin uses said amount of work, you cannot compare it. I could state, that Bitcoin uses 5 Wh. Which would also be correct.

        Its the same as saying, Bob eats 5 apples. Alice eats 2000 apples. Can you compare the two? No, because what I forgot to mention is, that Bon eats 5 apples a week and Alice eats 2000 apples in 3 years. Now i can compare the two.

        Do you get my point?