|
Title: ㅤ Post by: Symmetrick on February 14, 2022, 10:02:02 AM ㅤ
Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: Charles-Tim on February 14, 2022, 11:19:00 AM When I read the CoinShares report like 2 weeks ago, I brought it up on this forum
The bitcoin mining network, energy and carbon impact (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5383881.msg59129918#msg59129918) All I concluded at the time was that critics and many people are having wrong opinions that Bitcoin is significantly contributing to global warming. Even if there is no Bitcoin, what is happening recently like thawing of permafrost and melting of coastal region will still be happening as a result of human activities that is not Bitcoin related. What should be focused on that scientists are talking about is not focused on which is how greenhouse gasses release to the environment can be reduced to minimal. I also like the report because it mentions that not all electricity are not clean, some energy are from renewable and clean sources. And yet the electricity used are paid for in a way bitcoin can produce more energy and help economy rather than thinking bitcoin consumes energy. It consumes and pay for more to be generated. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: hatshepsut93 on February 14, 2022, 12:32:14 PM How can Bitcoin's share of emissions can be higher than its share of energy consumption if energy production is just a part of global emissions?
I wouldn't say that Bitcoin mining is exactly harmless for environment, but there's nothing about it inherently harmful, unlike with agriculture or construction - it's just a problem that electricity is still quite dirty, but this is changing quite fast. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: TheBeardedBaby on February 14, 2022, 12:38:26 PM Nothing to worry about, soon when project like ITER TOKAMAK (https://www.iter.org/mach/Tokamak)hit the market, the power consumption will no longer be a problem.
We are on a edge of change, on almost every aspect of life, so becoming a Type I civilization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) (based on Kardashev scale) probably won't take that logs as previously thought. In 10 years, nuclear fusion reactors will start to be more wide spread and the concurrence between the different companies will bring the price even more down. So Bitcoin will bloom for sure :) All this now it's just a temporary noise :) Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: Flexystar on February 14, 2022, 01:01:35 PM If bitcoin mining is so much trouble then imagine what will happen when STARLINK will be fully operational. I mean the whole hundreds of satellites will be pointing out laser beams in the earth’s atmosphere heating it up and creating buzz in the ionospheric layer.
I’m not sure if they have visioned this or not but that’s gonna be one of the topic of discussion. My question is, how come one technology which is just came to the matured stage of its advancement is hampering the environment? Cars and trucks running since hundred years, industries are at its peak. I’m not sure what’s wrong with small stuff like mining? Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: Welsh on February 14, 2022, 01:45:20 PM The thing is, with all the claims I've seen I've never seen any statistics which could actually be reliable. They're all using assumed data, which when you consider null hypothesis, isn't valid. So, for me to be convinced that Bitcoin mining is a problem, more so to the environment when you compare the other fossil fueled industries, that's when I'll take notice, and propose change. However, that has yet to be proven.
The thing is, I would likely acknowledge that Bitcoin is using a lot of power, after all Proof Of Work is designed that way, however that assumption is meaningless until I actually have data to back it up, without the data, and research which has been conducted properly its hard to justify change when you don't know all of the facts. I will still advocate that we should be looking to be as clean as possible when mining, however I can't state how urgent or even how important this is, since I don't have the data neither does anyone else. I'm pretty certain gathering accurate data for this would be nearly impossible. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking to make a change, but its annoying to see Bitcoin get this reputation, when I can almost guarantee there was other general consumer products that everyone uses everyday, which are both worse in power consumption, and probably could be improved upon. Also, CoinShares research isn't exactly that reliable, since they're estimating. Yet, as we know with something as unknown, and complex as this issue, the accuracy of such as estimate might well be painting a completely different picture at each end of the allowable range. Also, CoinShare's research could be considered somewhat bias due to the their involvement with Cryptocurrency. I'd like to see some proper research conducted from a neutral researcher, with as much transparency as possible. Although, I'm afraid it still won't be enough, because it'll end up being estimates rather than actual data we can rely on. The only argument I have for Bitcoin miners, and improving their energy consumption is; they will somewhat rely on the government improving their energy reserves, since most will be drawing off state assets, or it's within their best interests to reduce the cost of electricity so they profit more. Whereas, other industries that might actually not be as feasible or beneficial. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: dkbit98 on February 14, 2022, 08:42:32 PM Most of environmental propaganda we see on mainstream media, including Bitcoin mining influence is a pure fiction, but I guess you can pump anything if you give it enough attention.
You pay few journalists and corrupt scientist who hate bitcoin and you will get perfect mixture that fits into modern green narrative agenda for brave new world. Imagine something like Bitcoin mining that uses only 0.05% of the total energy consumption getting so much attention and bad press, it means they really don't like it, and it has nothing to do with environment. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: Sayeds56 on February 15, 2022, 02:39:08 AM How can Bitcoin's share of emissions can be higher than its share of energy consumption if energy production is just a part of global emissions? I wouldn't say that Bitcoin mining is exactly harmless for environment, but there's nothing about it inherently harmful, unlike with agriculture or construction - it's just a problem that electricity is still quite dirty, but this is changing quite fast. Well said. The real issue is the use of fossil fuel to produce electricity not the mining of Bitcoin but as you said it is changing quite fast in many countries not only Industries are switching to green energy but also people are using Solar panels for their domestic use and it substantially reduces energy bill. I also got solar panels installed on my roof top of my house and it really helps a lot. I am also thinking to use my solar panels for mining purpose. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: OcTradism on February 15, 2022, 04:03:15 AM Bitcoin Mining Council, Q4 survey confirms sustainable power mix and technological efficiency (https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/q4-bitcoin-mining-council-survey-confirms-sustainable-power-mix-and-technological-efficiency/)
According to that report, in Q4 2021 the proportion of sustainable power electricity in Bitcoin mining is 55.8% which is 1% increase from Q3 2021. That makes Bitcoin mining industry is one of the most sustainable industries over the world. Harm to environment, I agree but there is no perfect thing and I disagree to say Bitcoin brings worst effects to environment. It is much better than many industries. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: franky1 on February 15, 2022, 04:51:49 AM funny thing is
where you live determines what electric you get. you cant just phone up your utility company and say, "ill take clean electric today" you physically need to move to a neighbourhood near a renewable powerplant to be in range to receive renewable electric. since 2014 thats exactly what majority of asic farms done. set up their warehouses in those area's, on purpose residential home hobby miners are stuck with what their neighbourhood offers. mining farms are not power plants, mining farms do not produce the power. so its kind of a silly thing for influencers to shout out "bitcoin mining neds to switch" the actual wording should be POWER COMPANIES need to switch other things are.. if a asic farm is in a neighbourhood connected to hydro.. its 100% if a asic farm is in a neighbourhood connected to fossil.. its 0% its kinda one of the other. however they did not do any detailed research of what neighbourhood asic farms are in. instead they looked at the tally of which state/country overall % of sustainable clean energy (gas is included along with renewables) to come to the state/country/world wide average of 56% yet reality is if they actually mapped out all asic farms and then looked at the closest power plant. the numbers would be more higher in the renewable area EG. im in the UK. i live near nuclear.. but if i wanted hydro instead. i cant just call up my utility company and switch. instead i have to move to either wales or scotland as they are the only two area's with all the massive hydro power stations (none in england) that have capacity to cover a whole town/city Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: Kakmakr on February 15, 2022, 05:38:02 AM I have been saying this for years....
When you compare the energy use of other payment systems with Bitcoin, you have to take into consideration that these payment systems are backed by more than just the energy used to power the mainframe or server that runs that payment software. A company like VISA / Mastercard / Banks etc... have 1000's of people working in Offices that use energy. (Indirect energy usage) These people drive to work and they sit in air-conditioned Offices with computers and Servers that are running most of the day. Those payment systems are dependent on hardware that use energy ...examples : ATMs / Card machines / Printers ...etc... and those coins and paper/plastic money needs energy to produce it. ;) Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: cabron on February 15, 2022, 06:18:28 AM But why is it that somehow Elon dictates what miners have to do?
The report was that more miners are now using renewable energy while mining BTC. While they do this, it means they have less cost in electricity which there is no hard pressure for miners to sell thier BTC for a high price because after all energy doesn't come from the grid. Bitcoin Mining has so much threats to it already which Treasury Department obligates miners to give them access to data of market participants. With such threats, and miners has no choice or else they are done, makes Bitcoin network centralize. It might not take too long before the government issues documents who are the people only allowed to mine BTC. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: pooya87 on February 15, 2022, 09:11:26 AM But why is it that somehow Elon dictates what miners have to do? Who said he is?It's a free world and you can make any statement in the media regardless of how stupid it is and when you have some popularity that statement could spread over the internet more. Elon Musk has only been trying to be seen and gain some attention so that he could troll the cryptocurrency market with his FUD and hype flip flops. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: NeuroticFish on February 15, 2022, 09:21:51 AM But why is it that somehow Elon dictates what miners have to do? Because the boss of Uber (https://nypost.com/2022/02/11/uber-will-absolutely-accept-bitcoin-as-payment-in-the-future-ceo-says/) will most probably read what Elon said, but won't care what you or me are saying. Sadly. It overly interesting to see that Elon, the boss of Tesla was trending this "bitcoin is bad for environment" part, like his electric cars in China (for example) would do any better. But his curtain of smoke worked well, everybody is demonizing bitcoin and consider his cars friendly with the environment. I see here 2 good short ideas: where you live determines what electric you get. bitcoin miners are more mobile than traditional industries and can therefore move quickly to places where cheap renewable energy is available All in all, this narrative may have even made bitcoin mining cleaner. But it didn't stop. It may all be about who is dictating the news, after all... Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: franky1 on February 15, 2022, 11:59:32 AM It overly interesting to see that Elon, the boss of Tesla was trending this "bitcoin is bad for environment" part, how about his doge love for 3.25kw you can get 110,000,000mhash for bitcoin for 3.45kw you will get 9,500mhash for doge (yes they use different algo's. but bitcoin is proven more secure) doge mining is 11579x less efficient there are only ~30k doge asics but uses 0.88TWH/y (if based on the L7 asic)for 0.000,279exahash(279terrahash) right now bitcoin has 1.7m asics but uses 47THW/y.. for 190exahash if doge also used 1.7m asics it would use 51TWH/y.. for 16peta (0.016exahash) doge only appears to use less electric. not due to tech, algo or technique. but simply that there are 58x less people mining it also doge miners are usually home hobbiests(not choosing to set up in renewable regions) thus energy mix is more random towards the 20% renewable Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: DapanasFruit on February 20, 2022, 03:34:58 AM Most of environmental propaganda we see on mainstream media, including Bitcoin mining influence is a pure fiction, but I guess you can pump anything if you give it enough attention. You pay few journalists and corrupt scientist who hate bitcoin and you will get perfect mixture that fits into modern green narrative agenda for brave new world. Imagine something like Bitcoin mining that uses only 0.05% of the total energy consumption getting so much attention and bad press, it means they really don't like it, and it has nothing to do with environment. I fully agree with this. Right now, there are many scientists whose opinions can be bought for anything and they are not anymore following the science or maybe they got their own definition and understanding of science. And we have the mainstream media that can easily be swayed to act as the outlets for garbage...they stopped to do some credible digging a long time ago since it can take time and so they just repeat what is feed on them. Now, that credible information are already on the table, these people are so silent they will surely not cover this up as the narrative they are convinced with can be broken and they can be exposed as liars. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: franky1 on February 20, 2022, 04:13:27 AM Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: tbct_mt2 on April 25, 2022, 01:45:07 PM It is right to say Bitcoin mining is harmful for the environment. It is true to say the mining industry contributes to global warming. However, it is not true if anyone, any institution say that Bitcoin mining is the worst harmful contributor/ industry to global warming or any judgement coming closely to that extreme level. It is absolutely untrue.
Bitcoin mining uses power from both renewable resources and non-renewable resources and the proportion of renewable resources is better than other industry. Its total consumed energy is less than many industries, many nations so it is inaccurate to say it is the worst contributor for global warming or the most hazardous industry for global environment. In future, the proportion of renewable power resources in Bitcoin mining industry will only increase, to higher number than about 60% now. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: hatshepsut93 on April 25, 2022, 06:12:59 PM In future, the proportion of renewable power resources in Bitcoin mining industry will only increase, to higher number than about 60% now. There's a problem that Bitcoin creates demand for electricity, and coal/gas power plants come to fill this demand. This problem is nowhere big enough to single out Bitcoin as a big polluter on the same level as meat industry or transportation industry, but for governments it can be tempting to regulate or even ban mining, because it's such a low-hanging fruit - they will present it as fighting climate change, and no one will protest, because crypto users are a minority, and even within them not everyone cares about PoW. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: NeuroticFish on April 26, 2022, 08:29:12 AM There's a problem that Bitcoin creates demand for electricity, and coal/gas power plants come to fill this demand. In my country, for example, regenerable electricity is considered unreliable (which is correct, since wind and sun don't work 24/7) and (unfortunately) their solution is to still cover the industrial need for electricity from reliable sources (coal, nuclear, maybe hydro). And the surplus is sold/get rid of. That's the actual green energy: something many countries don't know what to do with. Still they blame bitcoin mining for not being green. Isn't that hypocrisy? Of course, I'm advocating this for some time already: large scale miners should build their own (green) energy production facilities. This will ensure they can operate for very long, no matter how low the block reward will drop and would also shut off the political trolls. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: hatshepsut93 on April 26, 2022, 06:52:31 PM Of course, I'm advocating this for some time already: large scale miners should build their own (green) energy production facilities. This will ensure they can operate for very long, no matter how low the block reward will drop and would also shut off the political trolls. Why should they make a large and risky investment if they can just look for existing electricity supply? If Bitcoin crashes and mining becomes unprofitable, what would they do with their power plants? They would be able to sell only a small fraction of their capacity at best. They don't get much, if anything, from such investments, and only take risks. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: Gyfts on April 26, 2022, 07:39:28 PM ... Elon Musk has no deep understanding of the energy usage associated with doge. He follows the doge strictly for memes and jokes. His following seem slightly neurotic about Elon's dealings with doge, they don't realize he's not serious about any of it. Though, Musk is serious about Bitcoin and its energy consumption, and I'd classify that more as being misinformed because he omits energy costs associated with fiat currencies in his analysis of energy consumption within the context of financial systems. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: Fortify on April 26, 2022, 07:46:02 PM I recommend reading them in their entirety, as this thread only provides summary excerpts. The "problem" of the environmental friendliness of bitcoin mining has been keenly discussed throughout the past year. The same Elon Musk urged miners to switch to green energy and then he will resume support for bitcoin in his company Tesla. Because of these statements and discussions, the bitcoin exchange rate has been constantly declining. Recently, a report on this topic was published, which states that all these arguments are incorrect. For example, the study says that the share of bitcoin emissions is only ~0.08% of the total global emissions in 2016. And also that bitcoin leaves a much smaller environmental footprint compared to the same industries of aviation, maritime transport, and even when using electrical appliances, such as air conditioners or fans. The full report can be viewed here: The Bitcoin Mining Network (https://coinshares.com/research/bitcoin-mining-network-2022) Doesn't it remind you of anything? Of course. The same story as the problem of using bitcoin for money laundering or drug purchases. And if you calculate what percentage of the use of fiat or other assets is used in such transactions, then, again, the footprint of bitcoin will be the same fractions of a percent of the total world volume. But it is necessary to fight, by all means, with bitcoin. :-\ In article Everything You've Heard About Bitcoin Mining and the Environment is Wrong (https://medium.com/coinshares/everything-youve-heard-about-bitcoin-mining-and-the-environment-is-wrong-585931a486e5) are key excerpts from The Bitcoin Mining Network report: Quote Key Takeaways: - Bitcoin mining uses approximately 0.05% of the total energy consumed globally - Bitcoin mining is responsible for for approximately 0.08% of global CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions - Bitcoin mining has a very small environmental footprint relative to other industries such as Aviation or Marine Transport, and is much smaller than Data Centers and even US domestic Air Conditioners, Electric Fans, and Tumble Dryers - Mining is highly beneficial to renewables heavy grids, as demonstrated by its large-scale integration with Texas’ wind-heavy ERCOT grid - The carbon footprint of flared and vented natural gas in the United States is enough to completely offset all Bitcoin mining emissions, or even have a positive net emissions impact The share of bitcoin in global energy consumption is negligible, about 0.05%. And the share of emissions due to bitcoin mining is only 0.08%: Bitcoin mining allows you to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil fields. Since dry natural gas is released during the extraction of liquid oil, it is usually wasted in flare towers. It is burned because it is unprofitable, since the gas is dry, it cannot be collected, transported, and there is also no necessary infrastructure for processing, so it is simply burned. Natural gas consists mainly of methane, which is 30 times more powerful than CO2, and when burned, the gas from methane is converted into water and CO2. This significantly increases CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Each ton of methane corresponds to 32 tons of CO2. Bitcoin mining solves several problems at once: it reduces CO2 emissions and does not allow wasting energy, as it happens in oil fields: It is also worth noting that, in terms of the carbon intensity of the energy it consumes, Bitcoin produces less CO2 per unit of energy than the global average: Quote At our last estimated carbon intensity of 466 gCO2/kWh (December 2021), Bitcoin produces less carbon per unit of energy than the global average at 492 gCO2/kWh (2019). The decline was due to the 2021 Chinese ban. In the future, the carbon intensity of bitcoin mining will continue to decline as bitcoin miners are more mobile than traditional industries and can therefore move quickly to places where cheap renewable energy is available. For example, last year, hashrate production depended on Chinese energy sources, which were predominantly coal and hydropower. The Chinese ban has reduced the consumption of coal and hydro energy, reducing CO2 emissions as well. So much misdirection and poor comparisons, this is part of the mistrust that many outsiders have when trying to talk to advocates of cryptocurrency - people framing the problem in the wrong way. Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies are a way to store and transmit money around. Making comparisons to things like airline travel or tumble dryers which serve totally different purposes is not the correct way to emphasize it's importance. The only way the average person will be comparing it is against other money moving services - like bank transfers, paypal type setups and payment card processors which are doing the same job in a much more energy efficient way because they simply don't have to calculate huge problems repeatedly. Title: Re: Harm to the environment from BTC mining - a fiction? Post by: NeuroticFish on April 27, 2022, 04:49:28 AM Of course, I'm advocating this for some time already: large scale miners should build their own (green) energy production facilities. This will ensure they can operate for very long, no matter how low the block reward will drop and would also shut off the political trolls. Why should they make a large and risky investment if they can just look for existing electricity supply? If Bitcoin crashes and mining becomes unprofitable, what would they do with their power plants? They would be able to sell only a small fraction of their capacity at best. They don't get much, if anything, from such investments, and only take risks. You must be kidding... Investing into mining devices is much riskier (on "mining gest unprofitable" path) and the businesses I am talking about probably have at least hundreds of them. More ASICs = bigger hash rate = less profitable mining. On the other hand, if they invest into their green energy facilities they: * will produce their own energy and mining is never unprofitable on free energy (of course, after ROI) * if mining is no longer profitable they can sell electricity, or sell the electricity production facilities, or even sell the land and the panels Investing into their own energy can easily be a better step and with more forward thinking than buying more ASICs. |
