Bitcoin Forum

So I am pretty new to bitcoin, but I am concerned with energy usage of the system.

I estimate that the bitcoin system is running on well over 400 kW in pure computation power. This figure only includes GPU/CPU power and not any other component. I saw a figure that shows that Slush's pool accounts for about 1/4 of the total blocks found and has about 208 Ghash/s capacity. If we assume that the entire network is using highly efficient GPUs we could expect around 2 Mhash/J, but I feel that this is generous. total power=(slush capacity)/[(slush fraction of total)*efficiency] = 208 Ghash/s / (0.25 * 2 Mhash/J) = 416 kW.

Thats quite a bit of power. The other concern is we can throw more and more power into solving the blocks, but we have fixed the rate at which blocks will be found to be constant. So we add more power, then difficulty increases. Is there any way that we can make this a more environmentally friendly idea?

My plan is to mine over winter and use the heat generated to heat my apartment. I was also thinking about adding in some solar panels. Doing those things would make me feel better about the mining, but I am still not 100% comfortable with the idea of being a part of the system which is energy intensive as a whole. I understand that this may not be a concern for many people, but I thought I would throw it out there and see what people are thinking. Thanks for your input.

Bitcon is much greener than fiat.
Think about all that paper, ink, trucks, vaults, armored men, banks.
So, I don´t care about a few kw thrown to the network, overall result is greener.

If you feel bad about playing a video game on a 3rd generation console or high end graphics card, then I guess you can feel guilty about mining Bitcoins. But keep 2 points in mind:

1) To run a miner is not a requirement to use Bitcoins. If the energy use deters you, you can simply stay clear of the mining.
2) The power used to mine Bitcoins is far less than let's say, mine gold, smelt it and secure it in bunkers or print paper money.

From the Bitcoin Myths page:

 http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_mining_is_a_waste_of_energy_and_harmful_for_ecology (http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_mining_is_a_waste_of_energy_and_harmful_for_ecology)

Would you be able to suggest an alternative computational task such that cheating would have no bearing on performance?  Without that, mining activity would neglect the tasks that don't provide the highest return.

[edited]

@Gusti: I don't disagree that the "flat" economy is energy intensive. However, I don't think we can easily compare them yet. Bitcoin is hardly a smudge compared to the US economy. Will it scale proportionally? And if so, is it still greener?

@goatpig: Not that its really that relevant (it has nothing to do with energy for me), but I own neither a video game console or a high end graphics card. I can steer clear of the mining, but I would still be supporting an energy intensive system. Sure mining for gold is energy intensive too, but I still have to wonder the same thing I asked Gusti above.

@sgornick Looks like you posted while I was typing this. I see the argument, but as an engineer, I like to see numbers and evidence. It very well could be that this system is much more efficient. If it is, awesome! I just want to see numbers and some scaling bounds.


However, something that was not addressed is the fact that we can throw as much energy at the block solving problem as we want and still get the same output. Yet, as people get interested in mining, the energy used will invariably increase. What will prevent this from skyrocketing and people wasting lots of energy? My only thought on the bound would be that the difficulty would increase to the point that bitcoins are equal to the cost of energy required to produce them.

think of it this way, this relatively trivial amount of energy is being consumed by a massive number of gpgpu equipment (equivalent to about about 1400 ati 5970s maybe).

bitcoin is subsidizing improvements to gpgpus by increasing sales to the manufacturers and is furthering the science of distributed computing.  these will help make gpgpus more affordable for science.

it is all being paid for with non-government spending (well, most of it anyway)

Well, as you say, Bitcoins can't logically out cost the energy the network needs to validate the transaction. As such, you have an upper limit of sort, which doesn't exist on fiat money. The other thing you need to consider is that while Bitcoin adopters do expect the currency to valuate alot, you have to keep in mind that this valuation means there is less wealth circulating in the fiat system as a consequence. So even if Bitcoin is a concurrent system to fiat currencies, it isn't concurrent on the energy level.

As for scaling, I can only provide an opinion, I have no figures to contribute, but I expect it to be widely less energy intensive than the systems it is aiming to replace. Also, considering the amount of electronics drawing power for no other purpose that leisure, I think the return from the energy spent is worthwhile on its own.

I will agree with you that Bitcoin mining is highly compatible with home electric production solutions.

In my personal opinion, the potential benefits that bitcoin can provide society far outweigh any potential concern over the amount of energy required to secure the network.

Also, in time, only the most efficient miners will be able to continue mining at a profit.

Hell, it may cause more people to become conscious of energy use in other aspect of their life. I know that once I started mining, energy use became a primary concern of mine.

I'm not sure you are really an engineer are you? 400kWatt is a pittance in the big scheme of things.

It should be remembered that the current primary system USD has a massive war machine in place enforcing the monetary order of dollar hegemoney ... are you railing similarly against the green issues raised by the US military?

It's all about perspective, bitcoin is far superior at the task that it id doing, in terms of energy expended, than the current dysfunctional system, but if you don't think so, come up with some real numbers for the current system and live by your calcs.

This... difficulty will tend towards whatever provides a small, but sustainable amount of profit for miners.

The amount of energy spent per day in an economically viable way (that is, excluding people who willingly burn more energy than what it gains them), is limited to block_subsidy*block_per_day*USD_per_BTC/USD_per_kWh.

Currently, this means around 50 * 144 * 1.7 / 0.11 kWh per day, or 111MWh/day, or 4MW power consumption. That is (currently) less than an accelerating eurostar train.

Note that assuming the block subsidy (including fees) and power price remain equal, this only depends on the bitcoin exchange rate, which may go up to 70 USD/BTC before it is economically viable to burn the equivalent of an average Boeing 747.

Also note that this is an upper limit - as long as miners want some profit, the total power consumption needs to remain below this number.

I don't think it's a concern for now. Bitcoin is already a great improvement over the previous way of doing things.

If it becomes an overwhelming success and power consumption really turns out to be a problem, someone will find a solution.

Thus is a good idea.  You may get some inspiration from my miner (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3707.msg53879#msg53879).
I think ArtForz should follow up this idea.  His ASIC does 200 Mhash/s at only 8 watts, and can probably be variably clocked to follow the MPP of a small 10W solar panel.  It would take considerable time for an investment in his miner to pay for itself, if ever, but what the heck.  I run all my gadgets on solar power myself (anything which can be charged via USB), just for the fun of it.  I get about 1 kWh per year from my smallish flexible panel, and it will of course never pay back the cost of the equipment.  Sunlight is scarce and power is cheap where I live.

The energy cost of a coin mined today I would estimate at arround 30% of it's current worth. That is much more than the percentage needed for printing a $10 bill. I think it es even more than what it takes to mine gold, I took a glance at these numbers some time ago.
But nobody figured out a better and still safe way to design a cryptocurrency yet. The difficulty and cost to mine is what makes bitcoins safe.

If you take all the overhead for reprinting, safekeeping, transportation, fake money and so on into account - my feeling is bitcoins will win.

Excuse me, but how exactly energy consumption is automatically bad for the environment?

Life itself is energy consuming...

It all causes to increase entropy... we're doomed!

Not if you consider the amount of energy it takes to run other monetary systems.  Just because your cash doesn't require energy to use, doesn't mean that it didn't take energy to create.  It took quite a bit, and considering the network of banks and institutions that exist to support the electronic flow of those same notes, the energy costs of the US FRN are astronomical compared to Bitcoin.

In some ways it's comparable to the energy required to dry your hands in a public bathroom.  Which takes more energy, the paper towel or the hot air blowdryer?  The answer is counter-intuitive, because we see the energy that the dryer uses; but we tend to overlook the energy required to 1) grow the trees, 2) harvest the trees, 3) produce the paper, 4) ship the rolls of paper towels, 5) and repeatedly replace the rolls as they empty.

The hot air blowdryer is orders of magnitude more energy efficient than a paper towel dispensory, as long as the dryer itself is reliable.

Good plan

Probably not so good of a plan; unless you live in a desert or otherwise want the solar panels for some other reason.  I've looked into this for my own home, and the panels never make their own cost of production back within their life expectancy.  And only make sense in remote conditions. or if you expect that the power grid will fail sometime within your lifetime.


Please add, "Bitcoin mining is not energy intensive compared to alternatives" to your poll, please.

I think we should club all baby seals so they stop consuming energy and destroying the environment.

I like that point.


I hope this is just a case of sarcasm not being conveyed through the internet and not a rude comment. Sure, its nothing compared to global energy consumption, but everything needs to be scrutinized no matter the size. Thats what any real engineer will tell you.


Good calculation. We are all hoping/expecting the value of bitcoins to increase, so that cap will increase proportionally. I need to learn more about the "fee" system so that I can do some calculations for when fee mining begins to dominate regular mining. This is difficult to speculate because computation and energy technologies will not be the same that far in the future.

That seems to be the mindset of most engineers or people in general. In my opinion, we should predict problems and solve them before their scale makes solutions expensive and complex.



I really like that miner setup! =). I'd like to learn more about the ArtForz ASIC. Is it just on paper right now or is he planning a production run?



I suppose that is becoming the common theme in this thread. However, I just want some numbers to back up the feeling. I don't know that it is better or worse. I just want to see and know.


Climate change and pollution come to mind. Solar is pretty clean, especially heat capture. However, burning fossil fuels does not only release lots of pollution, but it increases greenhouse gases. Not sure how big of an argument this may become. I know agriculture and farming is a HUGE contributor to greenhouse gases. Its a population issue. We all want to use energy and we are generally using stored energy rather than renewable energy. Fossil fuels are an efficient storage of millions of years of sun energy. It will run out however, but in the mean time we are releasing millions of years of carbon storage in a relatively short time span. We will face water shortages, climate shifts, increased food prices, etc. I am not sure where you live, but in my country fossil fuels dominate electricity production.
Your analogy is great. There is even more to consider however. How is the electricity being produced? Does it have emissions? Do they offset cutting down farmed trees for paper? There is a lot to consider for sure.

Solar does pretty well where I am from. In fact, I recently saw reports that solar is just about on the edge with being competitive with coal. Thats a pretty huge development. The only problem is that I am going to be moving (just graduated). I'll be going to grad school at CMU and I am not sure how much sun I'll be seeing in Pittsburgh. For me, I am concerned more with unseen environmental costs that are not factored into the current price of energy. If I use solar panels, I would hope to combat that.

I'll add your poll option.

Add human babies to your list. =P. Otherwise, very constructive comment there.

Those questions are irrelevent.  None of us have control over how the power is produced or it's effects are mitigated, regardless of the system we are talking about. 
It's also a bold-faced lie.  Solar tech would have to be less than free to compete with coal at the present time, because solar requires vast expanses of real estate to produce on any scale.  I would wager that less than 0.01% of the population has the real estate to produce their own power consumption in this manner even if the tech were 100% efficient.  Currently an efficiency rate of 20% is great.
Don't forget to include the energy costs and environmental impact of the manufacturing of those panels before you decide that solar is a good environmental choice.

I very strongly disagree. However, I feel that this discussion is outside the scope of my original post so I will not continue to debate environment. If you want, we can create a thread elsewhere on the boards to address this or we can talk in private messages.

Rofl.

IMO, its not like theres a shortage of energy, just in certain countries.

For example, Iceland is brimming with energy, has loads of hot springs and stuff, and way too much electricity. Similarly Iran (apparently) because of all the oil they burn. Yet California can't get enough.

I think the problem is not a lack of energy but distribution of it.

So to that point, I guess Bitcoin miners should be concentrated in places with an abundance of energy. And I suppose the free market forces will make sure that this happens.

BTW, as a side note I think that the solution to the 'energy crisis' is better infrastructure, so that we can have say a country like Iceland exporting its energy to say the US.

That energy can then be used in different forms, eg. Hydrogen for cars, Electricity for houses, etc. etc.

Thus replacing oil and solving the world's energy crisis. Simple, lol :)

Maybe you are just generalizing, maybe not. I don't live in California, nor have I ever faced an energy crisis. Energy is super cheap because we burn coal and the US as a whole does not charge the true cost of burning coal in its energy expenses. Thus, we have super cheap electricity but will not be able to pay for the end results of climate damage.

You seem to miss the point. It is not the distribution of energy, it is the USE of energy that is the issue.

How would you suggest we import energy from Iceland? Currently, all energy imports are in the form of oil. There must be a storage mechanism or a potential/thermal difference in order to transfer energy.

The world has an energy crisis because we of the effects it is having on the environment, not necessarily due to shortages.

If major corporate mining of bitcoins were to develop in Iceland, something that I consider likely if Bitcoin ever hits anything close to mainstream, as well as something that is likely already happening; this would be economicly equivalent to importing energy from Iceland.

Source? According to this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif), photovoltaics are one of the least competitive sources of energy.

Not only in places with an abundance of energy, also at times with an abundance of energy.

Making energy is the easy part, getting the energy to the place where it is needed at the time it is needed is what makes most alternative energy sources uncompetitive compared to oil.

The nice thing about Bitcoin is that you can take generation to where and when the energy is being made rather than the other way around. There are very few applications like that.

Therefore, market forces will ensure that Bitcoin generation makes use of energy that few other applications can use. In many cases, it will be energy that would have gone to waste anyhow, for example, surplus output from wind farms during very windy nights.

Or to restate an idea of my own from a few months back, someone will make a heat trace cable for water lines that has bitcoin asics in a strip.

willmoss and forever-d are onto something that most everyone has missed.

As I see it, the product of the computations is a "super-signature" on the block chain.  A block solution carries the hashing community's endorsement of the transaction history and attests to its completeness.  This is what protects receivers from double spends.  Far from being wasteful or frivolous, this resource is essential to the currency's usefulness.  Those hash values that start with all those zeroes function like a digital signature on email, but rather than a person or bank, it is the Bitcoin hashing community whose approval they demonstrate.

Bitcoin provides very little economic incentive to expend energy that would otherwise be usable.  It provides plenty of incentive to salvage energy that would go to waste if not for Bitcoin.  If someone is paying for electricity to mine bitcoins, something is wrong.  Solar panels fit the model at sunny times when nobody but Bitcoin needs their output.

The electricity spent in hashing is not wasted. It creates a product of value to the Bitcoin economy. The product is a supersignature on the complete list of transactions to date (the Block chain). This supersignature attesting to the chain's completeness is Bitcoin's defense against double spending.

Many sources of energy vary in their availability in ways that do not match the variations in demand. The law of supply and demand should require Bitcoin to soak up a lot of energy that is currently "wasted" before it makes a big dent in the otherwise usable energy supply. [Perhaps cite estimates of the break-even point for mining profitability that imply near-zero-cost electricity.]

I plan to replace the reply at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_mining_is_a_waste_of_energy_and_harmful_for_ecology with the above text, or a revision thereof if comments so warrant...

Are you going to be using just the text in green, or all of the text in that reply?

Here's my concern: The concept of a block chain where each block is protected with a hash isn't what gets people hung up.  The head scratcher to many is why it takes thousands of miners to come up with that one hash that is needed for the next block.  The answer to that should be in the response for this waste of energy myth.

Here's my attempt to answer:
To ensure that transaction blocks are produced at specific target rate a technique known as a proof of work system was chosen.  Miners perform work and as more capacity comes online the blocks are produced at a faster rate.  An adjustment is made periodically such that the rate blocks are produce returns to the specified rate.  There simply isn't a better solution that allows a decentralized network to generate blocks at a target rate without  any cheating.

This last week on NatGeo (tv) I watched a show called "Explorer: Secret History Of Gold".  (It's on again Tuesday , July 5).

In this show, one of the sub-stories was about a man in South America who was mining gold illegally in the rainforest.  He and other illegal miners had basically destroyed and polluted vast areas of the rainforest in search of gold.  What was there instead of trees were polluted piles of dirt.

I think the environmental impact of BTC pales in comparison to that.

It was a good show, I recommend it to anyone with an interest in money.

its green compared with any manufacturing or transport industry

an interesting comment is that shipping fumes are one of the biggest polluters for transport but you never hear about it. we could all crush our cars and ride bikes and a it would equate the the amount of ship pollution released in one day. (or something like that, it gross, and they burn the dirtiest shit cheap ass fuel making it worse)

I am did not read through previous posts. I am sure that was stated above. There is no danger in BTC for Ecology. Otherwise - BTC will lead to more carefull spending, and through it - to more careful approach to remaining resources. Only by that, BTC can do more for mother nature, than  over 9000 El Gor`s.
Cheers - enjoy the most ecology safe currency in the world.

The Handicap Principle is an idea from biology that shows cooperation is impossible without sacrifice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

This principle explains why proof-of-work works for Bitcoin and why some sort of expense is necessary.
http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/06/24/the-proof-of-work-concept/

The idea that Bitcoin should work costlessly is an example of the Nirvana fallacy.

A coal dragline peaks at 21,575 kW each time it scoops.   (Marion 8750).

That's over 50 times the entire bitcoin network for a single piece of machinery.

Interesting topic discussion. Not sure this is the best place for it, but whatever.

Kind of curious though about something. What about the rate at which we can make electronic equipment? There must be some sort of supply limit on the amount of precious metals available used in electronic manufacturing, right? I mean I know we can recycle used parts, but...well, I just don't know enough about it I guess lol

The energy is used for a good purpose. What about all the parasites who do nothing but steal from the market called the government how much energy they use and don't pay for just steal?