能源、气候与材料2021sciencedirect.com
美国 BTC 每 1 美元价值造成 0.49 美元健康与气候损害
Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：能源经济学基础、比特币挖矿原理
导读
这篇论文（发表于 Energy Research & Social Science）估算比特币挖矿在美国造成的健康与气候损害成本，标题称每 1 美元比特币价值对应约 0.49 美元的健康与气候损害。它将挖矿耗电与空气污染、碳排放等外部成本联系起来进行量化。
HN 关注点：比特币能耗与环境影响是 HN 的长期争议话题，讨论焦点集中在该估算方法是否可信、以及挖矿能耗是否真是值得针对的问题。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 2 补充 2
补充版主指出标题属于编辑化，违反 HN 规则并助长骂战
这个提交违反了站点规则：请使用原文标题，除非原标题有误导性或标题党；不要自行编辑。挑选一个细节当标题是最主要的编辑化行为。标题对讨论走向影响极大，这样改标题更容易引发骂战。
dang查看英文原文
This submission broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Cherry-picking a detail and making that the title instead is the primary form of editorializing, so please don't do that. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang Titles are by far the biggest influence on threads, so this matters a lot. Changing the title this way made a flamewar much more likely.
质疑质疑论文方法不可信，认为损害无法量化且电力多来自水电
这离“科学”最远，纯属耸动的宣传，根本不可信。也许 1 个 BTC 才对应 0.49 美元的“损害”——前提是这种东西真能被量化。大部分挖矿电力来自最便宜的电源，也就是水电。
eigenvalue查看英文原文
This is about the furthest thing from “science”. Just sensationalist propaganda. It’s so far from being even remotely plausible. Maybe 1 BTC is responsible for $0.49 of “damage” if you could ever actually quantify it. Most of this electricity comes from the cheapest source of power, which is hydro.
补充认为能耗问题会自我纠正，但真正的风险是囤币挤占生产性投资的囚徒困境
虽然令人遗憾，但这是个会自我纠正的问题：矿工迟早会厌倦为维持比特币资产而购买这么多能源的损失。加密货币最可怕之处是通缩循环可能在大范围内取代生产性投资。这并不自我纠正——这是 Moloch，是囚徒困境式的坏纳什均衡，先退出者吃亏。真正的担忧是像特斯拉这样的公司纷纷入场，减少生产投资转而囤币。这种动态曾导致 1930 年代大萧条——企业囤积金本位货币而非生产。不过没有央行推高的加密货币未必有当年黄金那样的破坏力；但加密货币更强的网络/模因效应，加上如今全球即时通信带来的市场同步放大，可能仍对经济构成危险。
BenoitEssiambre查看英文原文
While this is sad, this is a self correcting problem. Miners and other people using bitcoins are going to get tired at some point of the loss from buying all this energy to keep their bitcoin assets going. The most scary part of cryptocoins is the deflationary cycle that makes these crypto asset potentially displace productive investment on an economy wide scale. This is not self correcting. This is Moloch, it's a prisoner's dilemma, a bad Nash equilibrium where the incentives are to keep the vicious cycle going as long as possible because the first to leave the cycle are disadvantaged. This is mostly a worry if many companies do like Tesla and jump on the band wagon. They may be tempted at an economy wide scale to reduce investment in production in order to hoard cryptocoins instead. This dynamic caused the great depression in the 1930s when businesses switched to hoarding gold tied currency instead of producing. Now I'm not sure that crypto coins without being jacked up by central banks (like gold was during the great depression) are a powerful enough force to cause the type of havoc that gold did. Then again, the potentially stronger network/memetic effects of cryptocoins, along with the amplification factor from markets being synchronized through instant global communications nowadays might make them dangerous to the economy even without central bank involvement. We saw how much people got hypnotized during the Gamestop episode. I don't think unsophisticated investors' hoarding is enough to cause problems but it is a bit unsettling that Tesla and other companies are starting to hoard. If enough businesses follow suit, you get into scary territory (It would also be worrisome if companies widely moved to add billions in gold to their balance sheet but the lesson has been learned in the 1930s with gold). In theory, if central banks stay stimulative enough through all this, you can maintain growth in both productive businesses and crypto. As long as these central banks don't flinch at the sight of what may look like crypto bubbles.
质疑认为针对比特币的环保批评是错置矛头，真正问题是能源结构
我不懂最近这些“加密货币 vs 环境”的帖子从哪来的。核心问题是能源使用，对吧？用电的东西——比特币只是其中很大一个——都由有环境损害的电力驱动。我完全不关心 BTC，但如果它明天消失，它对环境的保护作用就跟禁掉塑料吸管阻止海洋塑料污染一样。
rkachowski查看英文原文
I don't understand where all these "cryptocurrency vs the environment" posts are coming from recently. The core problem is energy use, no? Things using electricity - of which bitcoin is a huge one - are powered by environmentally damaging supplies. I don't care about BTC at all, but if it were to be wiped out of existence tomorrow it would prevent further damage to the environment in exactly the same way that getting rid of plastic straws stopped plastic polluting the ocean.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2021Hacker News 讨论帖245 分 · 416 评
同领域还值得读
一种工程化 PET 解聚酶用于分解和回收塑料瓶
An engineered PET depolymerase to break down and recycle plastic bottles
通过蛋白质工程改造 PET 解聚酶，使其在较高温度下仍保持活性，从而更有效地把废弃 PET 瓶解聚为单体；随后再将单体重新聚合成符合工业强度、延展性和色泽标准的水瓶，展示了实验室…
能源、气候与材料2020 · 250 分 · 85 评专业 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选直射阳光下低于环境温度的被动辐射制冷 (2014)
Passive radiative cooling below ambient airtemperature under direct sun (2014)
这篇 Nature 论文（斯坦福 Fan 组，2014）展示了在直射阳光下实现低于环境气温的被动辐射制冷：用高反射率（约 95% 以上）的背面反射层配合二氧化硅等选择性发射结构，…
能源、气候与材料2021 · 145 分 · 66 评进阶 · 约 40 分钟编辑精选出现超出人类耐受极限的高温高湿天气
The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)
研究了全球范围内湿球温度（wet-bulb temperature）的观测记录，发现某些沿海地区已出现接近或超过 35°C 人类生存理论上限的高温高湿天气，比气候模型预测的时间更…
能源、气候与材料2020 · 570 分 · 509 评入门 · 约 45 分钟硬化木材：替代钢材与塑料的可再生材料
Hardened wood as a renewable alternative to steel and plastic
这篇发表在 Matter 上的论文提出一种“硬化木材”工艺：通过去除木质素并压缩等处理，使木材的硬度、强度大幅提升，号称可作为钢材和塑料的可再生替代品（据报道甚至可制成能切牛排的…
能源、气候与材料2021 · 315 分 · 274 评入门 · 约 45 分钟通过针对全球高污染电厂来减少 CO2 排放
Reducing CO2 emissions by targeting the world's hyper-polluting power plants
研究如何通过针对全球高污染发电厂来减少二氧化碳排放。
能源、气候与材料2021 · 289 分 · 219 评进阶 · 约 25 分钟