Is Bitcoin Mining Really Causing Environmental Damage? Maybe not that much...

[AngelOnCrypto]

There is this widespread notion that Bitcoin mining is detrimental to the environment, because of all the electricity it consumes. At a quick superficial glance, it seems logical. But in reality, it is not exactly the case.

Who mines Bitcoin and what kind of electricity is used for Bitcoin mining?

Currently, China accounts for about 71% of the mining hash power in the world. The mining farms are based in Western China. But why there?

Hydro power plants have been created in the past for the production of aluminium. Electricity is 60% of the cost to aluminium production through smelting. The aluminium market is oversaturated for years now and China, being a top producer, has cut the production. So they have a huge surplus of hydro energy that is not utilized. For simplicity, imagine a hydro power plant in the fields, surrounded by nothing else. And hydro energy is clean energy. It doesn’t kill trees.

However, the technological infrastructure for transporting the energy to regions that actually need it, is lacking. This overcapacity of energy can’t just be sent to China’s bustling urban centers. Actually it can, but electricity will have to travel long distances, which equals huge losses. Therefore, it would be more economical for a power consumer to be closer to the source of the power. This is where the mining farms and their warehouses have been built. Right next to the close-to-useless hydro power plants. So the majority of miners are using failed energy projects and not investing in new ones.

In order to mine Bitcoin, all you need is mining hardware, internet connection and a simple software and now the unutilized energy is used towards creating a decentralized blockchain system. Unused clean hydro energy is entering the global economy. This is the real mining! At the core of it, we have a Chinese river allowing a rural farmer in Africa get paid for the cotton he produces through the Bitcoin network. The Chinese rivers help a Filipino immigrant in USA to send his payroll to his relatives in the Philippines for cents of a dollar, rather than for a 40% commission fee via Western Union.

But Bitmain and the other pools are making so much money out of it. Is it fair?

Well, gold diggers and oil rigs are also making tons of money. Is it fair? Traditionally, the resource mining business has always been one of the most lucrative. It is at the top of the supply chain. In order for us to go to a gas station and fuel our car tank, someone had to drill that oil first. Gas has value for us as end users. We travel faster than on horses. In order for the gas station to make profit on retail prices, they need to buy that gas from someone first and so on. There is value for everyone in the chain, provided that the product or resource is actually needed.

The value exchange is pretty simple

Unutilized clean energy coming from rivers that doesn’t pollute the air on one hand. And the maintaining of a global decentralized payment system on the other.

So the real question is: “Is a decentralized, open, alternative, state-free monetary system needed?” For the average citizen in a developed country, it may still not be. But for billions underbanked that is life-changing.

A system that allows for 24/7 payments with no borders and close to zero fees. An alternative system to fiat money, that allows people in countries like Venezuela to protect their money and assets in rough times. A system that provides banking for billions in regions where there is no banks.

Conclusion

Unutilized clean hydro energy is being transformed into a global, borderless, open, decentralized, alternative financial system. The air is not being polluted. But the annual profits of banks are! And they will keep pondering how detrimental Bitcoin mining for humanity is. Is this the truth? Decide for yourself.

I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the subject...

[1713865277]

1713865277

[1713865277]

1713865277

[1713865277]

1713865277

[1713865277]

1713865277

[1713865277]

1713865277

[stompix]

If that energy wouldn't be used for bitcoin mining it would be used for another purpose that right now is using coal energy. Pretty simple. Let's say that all the energy from the three gorges dam is going to be used for bitcoin mining, what are the people that currently are using that energy going to do? Turn to coal!!!!

There is no industry that can claim is burning green unless there is a way to fulfill the entire need out of renewable sources.

However, the technological infrastructure for transporting the energy to regions that actually need it, is lacking. This overcapacity of energy can’t just be sent to China’s bustling urban centers. Actually it can, but electricity will have to travel long distances, which equals huge losses. Therefore, it would be more economical for a power consumer to be closer to the source of the power. This is where the mining farms and their warehouses have been built. Right next to the close-to-useless hydro power plants. So the majority of miners are using failed energy projects and not investing in new ones.

Bs!

Long-distance transmission of electricity (hundreds of kilometers) is cheap and efficient, with costs of US$0.005–0.02 per kWh (compared to annual averaged large producer costs of US$0.01–0.025 per kWh, retail rates upwards of US$0.10 per kWh, and multiples of retail for instantaneous suppliers at unpredicted highest demand moments).[18] Thus distant suppliers can be cheaper than local sources (e.g., New York often buys over 1000 MW of electricity from Canada)

[annasadia]

Each and every profitable investment has caused damage to the nature in some way. The damage caused by mining bitcoins are very negligible compared to that. Negative news and promotions are just a agenda for tarnishing bitcoin's reputation.

[franky1]

If that energy wouldn't be used for bitcoin mining it would be used for another purpose that right now is using coal energy. Pretty simple. Let's say that all the energy from the three gorges dam is going to be used for bitcoin mining, what are the people that currently are using that energy going to do? Turn to coal!!!!

BS
as for the idea that utility companies import electric due to over capacity is another flawed notion.

imagine electric generation.. like a car journey
right now coal gnerators take so long to set up, warm up and get on the road(send electric through the cables) that they end up just staying on the road and act like Uber, taking other people and leasing out their spare seat.. because its wastes so much fuel warming up the car each time you turn on and off the key, it ends up easier to leave the engine on

 the truth is more likened to the concept of car sharing. imagine every day your car has 4 seats but only 1 commuter (the driver).. imagine your neighbour knows you can get him to the destination and does not want the hassle of warming up his own car. checking the car is fit to drive and then taking the journey alone. so asks because you are already on the road if he can take a spare seat and share in the running cost.

now imagine if a big industry comes up to the neighbour and says. il give you a contract to lease out the spare seat of your hydro/solar hybrid car for a year AND we still have 2 back seats so that Mr Coal can tag along in the hydro-solar car.. making the hydro-solar car the Uber and so now the coal car can finally switch off its engine and get phased out.

think about that
have a nice day

[CryptoRaymond]

Huge power of electricity is required to mine bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. It really has some impact over the environment. But I hope it will be solved in coming days since so many expert are working hard behind the solution.

[stompix]

If that energy wouldn't be used for bitcoin mining it would be used for another purpose that right now is using coal energy. Pretty simple. Let's say that all the energy from the three gorges dam is going to be used for bitcoin mining, what are the people that currently are using that energy going to do? Turn to coal!!!!

B.S
imagine the three gorges dam
22500MW  =  (1 MW = 2,190 MWh.) so 22500MW= 49,275,000mwh =49.275 Tw/h = 431,649 TWH per year
in 2016 it only used under 100,000 twh per year

thats only 25% utility.

That's not utility, that is how much they were able to produce.
No water for all the turbines, there is no way you can produce at full capacity.

The Yangtze has variations up to 6 times in debit.

Check those two graphs and how they match each other:

right now coal gnerators take so long to set up, warm up and get on the road that they end up just staying on the road and act like Uber, taking othr people and leasing out their spare seat..

Wrong, coal power plants are always kept on standby and they can produce at 90% in a matter of 10-30 minutes, gas power plants are even faster at coming back online.

Almost every country in Europe is using coal or gas to balance the loads, Germany, for example, is backpedaling on the closure of coal mine as they've experienced the same thing as Poland, 4 days with barely any energy from solar and wind.
With coal/gas plants and imports they would have experienced the stone age for a week.

Check the live graph here:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm
And look how coal can easily balance the grid, spiking when wind and solar fail...

now imagine if a big industry comes up to the neighbour and says. il give you a contract to lease out the spare seat of your hydro/solar hybrid car for a year AND we still have 2 back seats so that Mr Coal can tag along in the hydro-solar car.. making the hydro-solar car the Uber and so now the coal car can finally switch off its engine and get phased out.

Unfortunately, the energy sector is not like that.
There is little to spare, there are no empty seats and people are driving in opposite directions.
Car sharing will never be able to even dream what load balancing does to the energy sector.

Don't get me wrong I don't like coal either but without a clean way to store energy, solar and wind will never be able to replace fossil.

[yugyug]

Mining Bitcoin generates less environmental damage compare to other mining industry like gold and other fossil fuel exploration. China and Iceland are using green technology for mining bitcoin and it is more portable than mining gold.

[farnandezetn]

Bitcoin mining is not causing environmental damage, rather the money printed in banks from papers are hazarding the trees, harming the ecosystem.

[Jamescur]

Bitcoin mining has caused a lot of waste of resources and is likely to affect the use of global resources and energy.
The carbon dioxide emissions caused by the power consumption during bitcoin mining will also affect the environment!
The temperature of the BTC mine is very high and it is easy to cause a fire!

[jackpot888]

No business is harmless I guess. But if you compare the return than the damage, you will easily understand the fact. Crypto market is considering for making money rapidly using open source code. Hence, I would consider its harm if any for getting benefits from it.

[gentlemand]

If miners could find the cheapest electricity from burning coal doused in bunker oil in giant single use plastic bottles they'd use it. If they didn't, another miner would. They don't care about environmental impacts. The only reason so many went hydro in China is because it was the cheapest as those plants were sitting idle.

I think it's a tad disingenuous to pretend Bitcoin mining in its present state and level is anything other than wasteful. I don't care if banking uses plenty of electricity too. The best we can hope for is that renewable stuff gets cheaper and winds up making the most sense.

[snipie]

Every industry has to trash something in the fabrication process to obtain its final products. Those wastes go to the sea, to the river, to the air... The heat issued by the mining process is nothing compared to the oil or coil extraction.

[BitCoinGuy10]

Bitcoin is now widely used and popular. Bitcoin demand can increase as more production increases. But it will not do any harm to the environment. Because the irrigation used here is environmentally friendly.

[franky1]

blah blah. chart chart 2008

ok... lets react to your chart. and like a poker game raise you my chart

yep its not 2008-2016.. but even from 2012-2016 you can see the growth..

nice bluff with the 2008 chart though..
anyway
left
~22500 in 2008
~29000 in 2012
~69000 in 2016
right
~49twh in 2008   
~119twh in 2012
~262twh in 2016

i don some trrible math in previous post converting hour yo year. which i remove in a few minutes of reading. but using a poker term, you had a quick hand to quote it in thm few minutes..

anyway.
upto 2016 it was using under 100twh but producing able to produce far more.. so had spare seats

right now coal gnerators take so long to set up, warm up and get on the road that they end up just staying on the road and act like Uber, taking othr people and leasing out their spare seat..

Wrong, coal power plants are always kept on standby and they can produce at 90% in a matter of 10-30 minutes, gas power plants are even faster at coming back online.
[/quote]
what i saiid and what you said are the same thing.. coal are not switched off. because it takes time to turn them on.. so they are always on and just sat at idle asking anyone to lease their time. they are ready to go and act as the uber driver.. because it cost too much to turn them off

and the plan/utopia is for renewables to be the standby/uber and then for coal to get to leave its engine OFF not always be in standby asking if othr countries need a lift.

as for the bits below.. well you conveniently you start talking about solar and wind.... nice subtle deflection away from hydro..

Almost every country in Europe is using coal or gas to balance the loads, Germany, for example, is backpedaling on the closure of coal mine as they've experienced the same thing as Poland, 4 days with barely any energy from solar and wind.
With coal/gas plants and imports they would have experienced the stone age for a week.

yes solar and wind are vary iffy.. especially wind. but if you took hydro you can have a more controlled mix then gothermal, then biomass.. and then.. have solar next inline and then wind to use as last. you can control things. EG wind is the worse. unpredictable and so when supply is high wind can be turned off easily.. then solar and then hydro.
what the energy companies are trying to do is get to a point where it is not coal thats the main source/last to switch off.. they eventually want hydro to be the always on standby(uber) and have coal and wind as the temporary

before i continue.. ill just say this
as for mentioning countries like poland.. again nice sidestep.. you do know that poland latitude means it only gets under 8 hours of sunlight in january.
im kind of thinking you meandered away from hydro.. and away from china.. to talk about solar/wind in poland for a convenient reason..

but lets stick with hydro in china..

blah blah germany.. blah blah off topic

now imagine if a big industry comes up to the neighbour and says. il give you a contract to lease out the spare seat of your hydro/solar hybrid car for a year AND we still have 2 back seats so that Mr Coal can tag along in the hydro-solar car.. making the hydro-solar car the Uber and so now the coal car can finally switch off its engine and get phased out.

Unfortunately, the energy sector is not like that.
There is little to spare, there are no empty seats and people are driving in opposite directions.
Car sharing will never be able to even dream what load balancing does to the energy sector.

Don't get me wrong I don't like coal either but without a clean way to store energy, solar and wind will never be able to replace fossil.

firstly energy sector WAS not like that. BUT is moving towards the things i said..
right now coal have lots to spare. its why they are able to sell it.. but for hydro to expand and become Lift(competitor to uber) they first need good reason to keep hydro production running 24/7.. and thats where contracted year supplys come in.. they can then get guaranteed year round revenue. and then use that revenue to expand. and have a fleet of Lift drivers(dams)

solar/wind(facepalm)

.. anyway china.. hydro (the subject of this topic) CAN store energy.. (reservoirs)
storing water vs storing coal. water is more environmentally friendly.. .. (fish and ducks CANT have sex and repopulate in coal)
turning water into electric does not produce smog.
and
imagine this.. the water thats released from a dam... can fill another reservoir.. and that same exact water can be re-used to turn more turbines

now.. to address your whole meandering..
i never said that right now this second hydro IS uber... but thats the future plan
right now electric companies need a consistant contract and payment for them to have a reason to keep hydro on 24/7.. and then use those funds to expand.. (its not free to make new dams)
so by doing yearly contracts of known electricrical usage (hiring a chauffer for a year) means the driver has a constant role to play and can expand business because they have constant revenue..

[Marlo Stanfield]

Mining Bitcoin generates less environmental damage compare to other mining industry like gold and other fossil fuel exploration. China and Iceland are using green technology for mining bitcoin and it is more portable than mining gold.

What do you mean by green technology in China? Do you mean hydroelectric generation stations? Certainly more green than say coal or something similar.

I think I know what you mean in Iceland, that being the geothermic power, right?

[Bitguybillionaire]

I've said time and time again that this argument that Bitcoin is leading to damage is a bunch of bullshit spewed by the media, governments, regulators, and the sheep that blindly follow these people as a way to discredit Bitcoin (and all cryptocurrencies) Yes, bitcoin may cause some sort of environmental damage -- but are we going to compare this with the LITERAL PRINTING OF hundreds of millions of dollars of money each year, burning of bills to put them out of circulation, and so on and so forth? Bitcoin may use energy, but this energy was going to be used either way. We're not a harmless currency, but no currency is harmless. I don't get this argument by people that don't like bitcoin, it makes little to no sense.

[stompix]

blah blah. chart chart 2008

ok... lets react to your chart. and like a poker game raise you my chart

yep its not 2008-2016.. but even from 2012-2016 you can see the growth..
nice bluff with the 2008 chart though..

Reading this I feel tempted to say somebody hacked your account

Do you really have no clue what installed capacity and production is when we talk about hydro energy?

For three months the Yangtze is increasing its flow 6 times.
There is no way any dam could hold the amount of water needed for a median production over 12 months, so this is why the huge installed capacity comes into play, running at full power for 3 months and going below when the water levels go down.
When the rainy season is over, so it's the unlimited cheap power.

And there are times when you have to shut it down because there is too much water  

as for the bits below.. well you conveniently you start talking about solar and wind.... nice subtle deflection away from hydro..

It's not a deflection.
Hydro is limited, there are just x rivers flowing with y water at z height.
You will NEVER be able to supply the whole world with hydro
So it's obvious that the only thing left was exactly the solar thing  YOU mentioned first..... 3 times

Remember?

firstly energy sector WAS not like that. BUT is moving towards the things i said..
right now coal have lots to spare. its why they are able to sell it.. but for hydro to expand

Yeah, I've heard they've discovered another Amazon river in Mali....

imagine this.. the water thats released from a dam... can fill another reservoir.. and that same exact water can be re-used to turn more turbines

and another turbine....and another one.....and you've invented the perpetuum mobile....

Get over it.
Only 15% of the global energy is produced by hydro, even if we tap every possible source we will get only to 25-30%.
And this before we plug in 3 billion electric cars

And if you mentioned staying on topic...gentlemand summarized it  perfectly

I think it's a tad disingenuous to pretend Bitcoin mining in its present state and level is anything other than wasteful. I don't care if banking uses plenty of electricity too. The best we can hope for is that renewable stuff gets cheaper and winds up making the most sense.

Let's see all those mini-hydropower plants in China deal with bitcoin at 100 000$.

[cryptocoinshunter007]

From my point of view bitcoins play a role which contributing a much lager concept of energy consumption. I think society also understand the popularity of bitcoin in last decade. Scientist also aware about the relation of humanities carbon footprint. So I think its not that much damage our environment.

[wall101]

Bitcoin mining has caused a lot of waste of resources and is likely to affect the use of global resources and energy.
The carbon dioxide emissions caused by the power consumption during bitcoin mining will also affect the environment!
The temperature of the BTC mine is very high and it is easy to cause a fire!

holysheeit sir you're something you really are, what are you on?.

I think you were just using more electricity you'll pay it anyways, it's no where near in mining Manganese, tantalum, cassiterite, copper, tin, nickel, bauxite (aluminum ore), iron ore, gold, silver, and diamonds   

[chaoscoinz]

There is this widespread notion that Bitcoin mining is detrimental to the environment, because of all the electricity it consumes. At a quick superficial glance, it seems logical. But in reality, it is not exactly the case.

Who mines Bitcoin and what kind of electricity is used for Bitcoin mining?

Currently, China accounts for about 71% of the mining hash power in the world. The mining farms are based in Western China. But why there?

Hydro power plants have been created in the past for the production of aluminium. Electricity is 60% of the cost to aluminium production through smelting. The aluminium market is oversaturated for years now and China, being a top producer, has cut the production. So they have a huge surplus of hydro energy that is not utilized. For simplicity, imagine a hydro power plant in the fields, surrounded by nothing else. And hydro energy is clean energy. It doesn’t kill trees.

However, the technological infrastructure for transporting the energy to regions that actually need it, is lacking. This overcapacity of energy can’t just be sent to China’s bustling urban centers. Actually it can, but electricity will have to travel long distances, which equals huge losses. Therefore, it would be more economical for a power consumer to be closer to the source of the power. This is where the mining farms and their warehouses have been built. Right next to the close-to-useless hydro power plants. So the majority of miners are using failed energy projects and not investing in new ones.

In order to mine Bitcoin, all you need is mining hardware, internet connection and a simple software and now the unutilized energy is used towards creating a decentralized blockchain system. Unused clean hydro energy is entering the global economy. This is the real mining! At the core of it, we have a Chinese river allowing a rural farmer in Africa get paid for the cotton he produces through the Bitcoin network. The Chinese rivers help a Filipino immigrant in USA to send his payroll to his relatives in the Philippines for cents of a dollar, rather than for a 40% commission fee via Western Union.

But Bitmain and the other pools are making so much money out of it. Is it fair?

Well, gold diggers and oil rigs are also making tons of money. Is it fair? Traditionally, the resource mining business has always been one of the most lucrative. It is at the top of the supply chain. In order for us to go to a gas station and fuel our car tank, someone had to drill that oil first. Gas has value for us as end users. We travel faster than on horses. In order for the gas station to make profit on retail prices, they need to buy that gas from someone first and so on. There is value for everyone in the chain, provided that the product or resource is actually needed.

The value exchange is pretty simple

Unutilized clean energy coming from rivers that doesn’t pollute the air on one hand. And the maintaining of a global decentralized payment system on the other.

So the real question is: “Is a decentralized, open, alternative, state-free monetary system needed?” For the average citizen in a developed country, it may still not be. But for billions underbanked that is life-changing.

A system that allows for 24/7 payments with no borders and close to zero fees. An alternative system to fiat money, that allows people in countries like Venezuela to protect their money and assets in rough times. A system that provides banking for billions in regions where there is no banks.

Conclusion

Unutilized clean hydro energy is being transformed into a global, borderless, open, decentralized, alternative financial system. The air is not being polluted. But the annual profits of banks are! And they will keep pondering how detrimental Bitcoin mining for humanity is. Is this the truth? Decide for yourself.

I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the subject...

Mining actually creates an interesting scenario. Mining is a way for users in the network to process transactions and receive payment for participation in helping run the network. The problem lies within the very tools utilized to mine with in the first place.
Mining by today's means, requires one hell of a rig setup, which naturally wil end up being an energy consumer.
   Mining may actually present a serious problem as far as you electric bill is concerned, but other than that, this environmental threat seems to be more or so based on paranoia. I mean, let's be logical for a second and think, how many people are actually mining,  let alone equipped to do so?  I can see if every house on the block had a rig setup, but where talking bout small number of people compared to those who don't mine.