2018-05-17 Bitcoin Mining To Use 0.5% Of World’s Energy By End Of 2018, Peer-Rev

[Crypto_Hot_News]

Bitcoin Mining To Use 0.5% Of World’s Energy By End Of 2018, Peer-Reviewed Research Shows

Economist Alex de Vries, who published an article on “Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem,” yesterday, May 16, in scientific journal Joule, told the  Independent that Bitcoin (BTC) mining will use 0.5 percent of the world’s energy by 2018.

De Vries concludes that as the BTC network currently consumes about 2.55 GW of electricity and moves towards consuming 7.67 GW in the future (for reference, Ireland consumes 3.1 GW and Austria 8.2 GW), the network “has a big problem, and it is growing fast.” However, he does note that solutions like the Lightning Network “may alleviate the situation.”
Bitcoin mining requires energy for performing the calculations - hashes - that give miners Bitcoin rewards. In mid-February, it was reported that crypto mining in the country of Iceland would consume more energy than households in 2018. The debate over whether Bitcoin mining is overly harmful for the environment is seen by some as a non-issue, due to the real need for Bitcoin in underbanked countries.
De Vries told the Independent, however, that “half a percent is already quite shocking:”
“It’s an extreme difference compared to the regular financial system, and this increasing electricity demand is definitely not going to help us reach our climate goals.”
The scientific study goes into detail about the different types of Bitcoin miners and their individual energy usage, noting that “trying to measure the electricity consumed by the Bitcoin mining machines producing all those hash calculations remains a challenge to date.” De Vries uses Bitmain’s Antminers as his main example to show how much energy each machine uses in its lifetime.

As De Vries’s study is the first time data on Bitcoin energy consumption has been peer-reviewed, he hopes his paper will “get the conversation started,” as he believes that the world needs “more scientific discussion on where this network is headed” as opposed to “back-of-the-envelope calculations,” he told the Independent.
Conversely, the technology behind Bitcoin, blockchain, is being used to alleviate environmental impact in some cases. This week, IBM announced a partnership with Veridium Labs with the aim of tokenizing carbon credits to allow companies to better track their carbon footprint through blockchain, potentially allowing them to reduce their carbon impact.

Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-mining-to-use-05-of-worlds-energy-by-end-of-2018-peer-reviewed-research-shows

[1714908471]

1714908471

[1714908471]

1714908471

[1714908471]

1714908471

[1714908471]

1714908471

[1714908471]

1714908471

[1714908471]

1714908471

[OLPORTAL_Nastya]

Solutions will be found sooner than we think. Lightning network is only the beginning of the ledgers evolution

[Thadeous]

Imagine how many houses could be heated and how many accumulators could be charged with this amount of power??
If to redirect all this power to electocar industry development, the price of electocar would probably fall to about $5K by 2020

[Carlton Banks]

In mid-February, it was reported that crypto mining in the country of Iceland would consume more energy than households in 2018

What's the source of the electricity in Iceland? Geothermal renewable


Typical idiot journalism and academic work here. Nowhere does this article mention the reason why cryptocurrency mining uses energy (although a reason is given, which is incorrect).

What would you expect from Cointelegraph.com, though? The article appears to be copy-pasted directly from some other publication anyway, which strongly implies Cointelegraph.com don't employ anyone to check the text in "their" stories, which you'd think would be particularly important when the text has been copied from a different website

[richardsNY]

In mid-February, it was reported that crypto mining in the country of Iceland would consume more energy than households in 2018

What's the source of the electricity in Iceland? Geothermal renewable

Ssst... Don't ruin how much effort was put into this article.

Seriously, from everywhere we start seeing how much of a hypocrite they are when it comes to Bitcoin and the power it consumes. In most modern countries, or at least those with developed infrastructure, have so much overcapacity when it comes to power, that it either gets sold to the few bidders (because it simply isn't wanted that much) who buy it because it's cheap, or it blatantly goes to waste. Miners are very reliable power consumers, which grants power suppliers to deliver them a very accurate amount without having much waste, which is in my opinion also in benefit of the environment. Households on the other hand are very unreliable when it comes to the amount of power they consume as a whole, from where more power goes to waste than anything else. So who exactly is worse here?

[Karartma1]

Securing the most important network on Earth as its price I guess. By producing (mining) bitcoins people are extracting new value that goes directly or inderectly into the real economy.
I don't mind much how much electricity is used but what I worry the most is those ASICs and GPUs becoming filthy waste

[BitHodler]

It wasn't all that long ago where I read an article about how the traditional financial system consumes way more energy than Bitcoin and all other coins combined. Should we point at how bad that is?

With how the world is changing more and more, the energy consumed by the financial system will keep increasing as well. Imagine how much of a reduce in energy consumption blockchain usage will lead to.

At some point when financial institutions and governments use Bitcoin's network for cross-border trades and transactions, they will drop all this useless energy consumption drama.

No usage means Bitcoin's energy consumption is a problem. Usage means we don't talk about it anymore. That's how governments work.

[Lucius]

If only BTC mining energy consumption is problem, then there is no problem at all. If in total all BTC network will use same amount of energy or less then one small EU country (Austria) how this can be problem. Much bigger problem is that big part of that energy is coming from China coal power plants which causes major pollution and large carbon dioxide emissions. There are alternatives in the form of using water power, sun, wind, geothermal sources and perhaps some innovative energy sources. With the development of technology such solutions will become more accessible and cheaper.

So there is a unlimited amounts of clean energy around us, people just need to be intelligent enough to use it.

[Carlton Banks]

Much bigger problem is that big part of that energy is coming from China coal power plants which causes major pollution

Not any more. Chinese mining operations have been relocating from China since the Chinese government became more belligerent about Bitcoin businesses last year.

large carbon dioxide emissions.

Whether or not CO² emissions cause significant problems or not is disputed science. Climate scientists are in major disagreement about this.

The only group of people that are near 100% in agreement about CO² emissions being a serious problem are: Politicians.

[gabbie2010]

Sooner or later I belief there will be a breakthrough in the in the manufacture of less power consuming mining equipment or better still use of solar generating plant, now that Samsung has indicated in interest in mining equipment they will find a lasting solutions to issues of power consuming ASICs and other related equipment are these measures will reduce the projected value acclaimed in the article.

[Lucius]

Much bigger problem is that big part of that energy is coming from China coal power plants which causes major pollution

Not any more. Chinese mining operations have been relocating from China since the Chinese government became more belligerent about Bitcoin businesses last year.

large carbon dioxide emissions.

Whether or not CO² emissions cause significant problems or not is disputed science. Climate scientists are in major disagreement about this.

The only group of people that are near 100% in agreement about CO² emissions being a serious problem are: Politicians.

It is true that Chinese miners are moving from China from the beginning of this year, but this process can not be completed in a short time. Problem for miners is how to find good location, not too hot and with relatively cheap electricity.

I do not think there is any doubt about the global warming of the planet, and what causes it. There are two types of scientists, those who work for governments and related interest groups and independent scientists who investigate objectively, and their opinions are completely opposite.

As for the politicians, they are far away from 100% in agreement regarding this problem, at least USA politicians who decided to leave Paris Climate Accord. China is not far away from that thinking, the amount of pollution produced there will only increase in the future.

[Carlton Banks]

I do not think there is any doubt about the global warming of the planet, and what causes it.

Right, you're saying there's no doubt, got it.

There are two types of scientists, those who work for governments and related interest groups and independent scientists who investigate objectively, and their opinions are completely opposite.

Ok, so now you're saying there is considerable doubt, interesting. You changed your mind very quickly!

As for the politicians, they are far away from 100% in agreement regarding this problem, at least USA politicians who decided to leave Paris Climate Accord. China is not far away from that thinking, the amount of pollution produced there will only increase in the future.

They're closer to 100% agreement than any other demographic. Which, as you're demonstrating, isn't that close.


Any other ways you'd like to help me prove that anthropogenic climate change is far from proven or consensus science?

[TraderTimm]

And not a single word about "always on" devices that suck power even when they're turned "off".

Not a single utterance of how much power, servers, trucks, buildings and such the legacy financial system uses.

No consideration for how the comparison to Bitcoin mining/validation would make crypto power usage seem like a rounding error.

This is just the latest push to mess with cryptocurrency. They couldn't pin the "everyone buys drugs" on it, they couldn't say that terrorists exclusively use it, they couldn't say that it was a huge scam -- even though they tried -- so now here comes the "Crypto isn't GREEEEEEEN" bullshit.

Power usage for mining INCENTIVIZES someone to find the cheapest and most renewable sources possible. In effect, it spurs developments that ENCOURAGE sustainability. (Even Andreas agrees!)

Just another pile of FUD from the never-ending crap machine of the status quo.

[Carlton Banks]

Power usage for mining INCENTIVIZES someone to find the cheapest and most renewable sources possible.

This.


All electrical use incentivises cheap and sustainable generation methods in fairness, cryptocurrency mining simply needs to respond to those incentives with far more sensitivity.

[Lucius]

I do not think there is any doubt about the global warming of the planet, and what causes it.

Right, you're saying there's no doubt, got it.

There are two types of scientists, those who work for governments and related interest groups and independent scientists who investigate objectively, and their opinions are completely opposite.

Ok, so now you're saying there is considerable doubt, interesting. You changed your mind very quickly!

As for the politicians, they are far away from 100% in agreement regarding this problem, at least USA politicians who decided to leave Paris Climate Accord. China is not far away from that thinking, the amount of pollution produced there will only increase in the future.

They're closer to 100% agreement than any other demographic. Which, as you're demonstrating, isn't that close.


Any other ways you'd like to help me prove that anthropogenic climate change is far from proven or consensus science?

There is no doubt for me and for scientists who are investigating this issue objectively, for so-called scientists who are on the payroll of governments and some powerful organizations who only live for profit this problem does not exist at all. If that so-called scientists get task to say BTC will destroy our planet they will do that, same as they say global warming has nothing to do with human activity.

If you're interested in this subject more use all the benefits of the internet, why should I help you or prove anything...

[Carlton Banks]

There is no doubt for me and for scientists who are investigating this issue objectively, for so-called scientists who are on the payroll of governments and some powerful organizations who only live for profit this problem does not exist at all. If that so-called scientists get task to say BTC will destroy our planet they will do that, same as they say global warming has nothing to do with human activity.

That's one hell of a contradictory position you have there.

The same contingent of scientists selling the global warming position will necessarily claim that Bitcoin mining will destroy the ecosystem. So, they're right about anthropogenic climate change, but wrong about Bitcoin mining with fossil fuels accelerating climate change? Do we need to consult the wider internet just to demonstrate basic logic?

[Samarkand]

The analysis of Alex de Vries contains huge methodological problems.

#1:

And while he does have confidence in his estimates, the problem with this method is that these manufacturers
 are extremely secretive. "Sometimes the best information we've got is really shaky eyewitness accounts. That's the stuff we have to work with," he says.

Does this look like reliable data to work with? I wouldn´t take estimations that
are based on "shaky eyewitness accounts" seriously at all. These eyewitnesses might
be completely biased, which would obviously distort the results of the whole
study (e.g. if you talk to a disgruntled ex-Bitmain employee he might not be 100 % honest,
because he might still have a grudge against his former employer).

#2:

For the majority of the network no information is
available at all. At this time, it therefore cannot be ruled out that hashrate
simply does not reflect a large part of the electricity consumed in Bitcoin
mining.

While this seems theoretically possible, it is strongly likely that the hashrate is indeed
a pretty good indicator of the electricity consumed in Bitcoin mining.

There are several other flaws in his method (e.g. he bases some of his calculations on the
lifetime energy requirement of an Antminer S9 while completely ignoring the possibility
that more efficient ASICs emerge).

Besides, he completely ignores the fact that some energy usage might come from sources
like the geothermal renewables in Iceland or that the energy providers are actually happy
that miners are making use of excess energy in the system.

If anyone wants access to the full article, send me a PM (not sure if I´m allowed
to link it here, because it was published behind a paywall of a journal).

[Karartma1]

The analysis of Alex de Vries contains huge methodological problems.

#1:

And while he does have confidence in his estimates, the problem with this method is that these manufacturers
 are extremely secretive. "Sometimes the best information we've got is really shaky eyewitness accounts. That's the stuff we have to work with," he says.

Does this look like reliable data to work with? I wouldn´t take estimations that
are based on "shaky eyewitness accounts" seriously at all. These eyewitnesses might
be completely biased, which would obviously distort the results of the whole
study (e.g. if you talk to a disgruntled ex-Bitmain employee he might not be 100 % honest,
because he might still have a grudge against his former employer).

#2:

For the majority of the network no information is
available at all. At this time, it therefore cannot be ruled out that hashrate
simply does not reflect a large part of the electricity consumed in Bitcoin
mining.

While this seems theoretically possible, it is strongly likely that the hashrate is indeed
a pretty good indicator of the electricity consumed in Bitcoin mining.

There are several other flaws in his method (e.g. he bases some of his calculations on the
lifetime energy requirement of an Antminer S9 while completely ignoring the possibility
that more efficient ASICs emerge).

Besides, he completely ignores the fact that some energy usage might come from sources
like the geothermal renewables in Iceland or that the energy providers are actually happy
that miners are making use of excess energy in the system.

If anyone wants access to the full article, send me a PM (not sure if I´m allowed
to link it here, because it was published behind a paywall of a journal).

interesting.

IMHO this represents one of these attempts to bring dark Shadows on bitcoin. It needs to be presented badly so that more and more good people will stay away from it.

by the way, please, i would like a copy. thank you

[Bameras]

In mid-February, it was reported that crypto mining in the country of Iceland would consume more energy than households in 2018

What's the source of the electricity in Iceland? Geothermal renewable


Typical idiot journalism and academic work here. Nowhere does this article mention the reason why cryptocurrency mining uses energy (although a reason is given, which is incorrect).

What would you expect from Cointelegraph.com, though? The article appears to be copy-pasted directly from some other publication anyway, which strongly implies Cointelegraph.com don't employ anyone to check the text in "their" stories, which you'd think would be particularly important when the text has been copied from a different website

I think most of the energy used by the mining farm would otherwise be wasted. The examples are the hydro, solar, wind energy.