Hear me out. On Reddit, the #solarpunk channel is decidedly anti-blockchain. To me, this is totally surprising and against the actual ethos of Solarpunk - to integrate technology for a bright, clean future.

Granted, blockchains don’t have much reputation in alternative circles. And for a good reason. A lot is just linked to scams, get-rich-quick dudes, and speculation, apart from energy consumption arguments.

But blockchain at its core is just a distributed database. One that has no central authority, can not be tampered with, cannot be altered, nor taken down if parametrized accordingly.

This allows - as a potential - to democratize access and value creation. Renewable energy is also fundamentally decentralized. Everyone can participate!

Now, with the costs of renewable energy creation (notably solar) shrunk significantly, and the demand for energy consumption rising heavily, if we only think about the booming electric vehicles alone -

What if people could earn money by generating solar energy and selling directly to vehicles, instead of the grid? I believe this could actually boost renewable energy generation over the roof.

Generators would be rewarded with a blockchain token for the energy generated, while consumers would pay for the energy in those tokens. Therefore speculation would be curbed as the tokens are for a real thing, energy, which on top is a stable unit - kWh.

Of course there are a lot of hurdles here - mostly institutional. Usually, energy is controlled by local authorities. They don’t want to allow anyone access to this market.

Then there is the distribution issue. Energy must be transported to the points of consumption, the charging stations. But due to the decentralized nature, this could actually result surprisingly cheap, as instead of transporting large distances, more charging stations in neighborhoods could reduce those distances. But still, this would require upfront charging stations and distribution investments.

I am an engineer. A dreamer. More often than not, as many many others, the realities of markets and economies clash with such ideals, thrashing generally good ideas.

But I wonder if such a scheme could made be possible. Anyone having some good suggestions? I mean mainly from the economics side. How to design the scheme, how to make it so that it is interesting to everyone? There are already several solar energy blockchains, but they kinda failed to get traction.

For the more radicals - I also dream of a money-less Solarpunk future, but to date, it seems further away than ever, looking at the right wing surge everywhere. Maybe we can build bridges at least from the technological side. Thank you if you got so far. Happy to respond to critique and questions.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think this idea has at least two problems:

    1. Energy consumption is only a problem for outdated cryptos like bitcoin. Prettymuch every modern crypto runs on much more efficient proof-of-stake, etc.
    2. Even if we wanted a solar crypto, how would we verify that it’s generated by solar power?
    • holon_earth@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I thought the same way as validating in Proof-of-Stake works: The devices have a private key (yes there are issues there about securing them for non-authorized access, but they can largely be addressed like also nodes do) which is registered on the blockchain. Then only these registered devices can issue coins. This is critical and there might be a lot of ways this could be hackable, which could or could not be mitigated. However I thought it’s not more of a challenge than running say an Ethereum or any other node.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        This isn’t anything like how validating in proof-of-stake works (at least not in Ethereum’s version, which is the one I’m familiar with). Validating is permissionless. Anyone can set up a validating account, there’s no authority that can reject you.

        Who “authorizes” keys to determine if a particular solarpunk miner is sufficiently solarpunk?

        • holon_earth@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Yeah that is the single most important issue why the whole project is probably flawed. It was addressed in some other comment by some other thoughful commentator in a slightly different way. I know Ethereum (and other PoS chains) pretty well too, and I understand permissionless.

          It shouldn’t be authorized. Ideally, through the energy meter, only solar (and other renewable) energy generated should be able to mint the coins. There should be some kind of protocol or consensus mechanism that would accomplish that. I guess no such protocol exists :) Thanks!

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Proof of stake is a centralized system. If access to your ledger is going to remain centralized then there’s no need for it to be a blockchain. You can just have a regular distributed database.

    • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Also, “Proof of stake” would just mean that the owners of the ledger are unaccountable random rich guys instead of the shareholders of the utility company. That’s a distinction with absolutely zero difference.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        No, that’s not how proof of stake works. Or it doesn’t have to, at any rate. Ethereum’s staking token is not a governance token, holding a lot of it doesn’t give you any “ownership” of the blockchain as a whole.

        Quite the opposite in fact, if you’re staking millions of dollars worth of tokens then that means the blockchain has millions of dollars worth of your assets “held hostage” to ensure you follow the blockchain’s rules. If you don’t then the hostage gets slashed.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Admit what? There are a huge range of possible designs that could be called “Proof of Stake”, and some of them could easily have that flaw. You can always design something poorly. Ethereum, the most widely used Proof of Stake token, doesn’t have that flaw in its design.

            • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              Of course it does. A million validators on less than 15,000 nodes? The top 100 accounts already own 35% of the network and rising? The top 0.005% of accounts own more than 78%? A Gini coefficient worse than Ukraine? A Nakamoto index of 3?

              Ethereum is only months from a level of wealth concentration that would give Lido and Coinbase a combined 51% of the stake.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 hours ago

                I have little to say about this because it’s basically nonsense.

                The top 100 accounts already own 35% of the network and rising … that would give Lido and Coinbase a combined 51% of the stake

                These two statements are completely incompatible with each other, for example. Also, the top 100 accounts only holding 35% of the network is remarkably good. And Lido is not controlled by a single individual or organization. And holding 51% of the stake means nothing on Ethereum, it works differently from Bitcoin. And the Gini coefficient is something that applies to national economies, not to blockchains. And I could go on, but this is just nonsense and you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • SoftTeeth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Like most new technologies these days, blockchain doesn’t add anything besides a layer of plausible deniability for the rich to hide behind when they inevitably steal from the poor.