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

[CryptoDoing]

I don't think that's true. I think it's just a fairy tale from the yellow press, which are aimed to stop the giants in the field of cryptocurrency mining.

[1714799687]

1714799687

[1714799687]

1714799687

[1714799687]

1714799687

[AAKODI]

It maybe causing environmental damage and everything in this world which uses electricity or any other things cause environmental damage for some extend for an example we see hybrid cars as environmentally friendly concept because of the fuel efficiency and low air pollution  but to make the hybrid battery some expertise say there is a huge pollution that is causing in the long run but most people buy hybrid and why we should concern about the small bitcoin environment damage when it gives more advantages and benefits 

[Teriyanone]

It is ignorable because we haven't calculated how much of electricity is wasted by currency traditional money transferring systems waste world electricity due to there ineffective systems and processes and if we do that we will definitely find what is the best way to transfer currencies and I am very sure that Bitcoin will win because no other technology in the traditional financial system can compete with Bitcoin at the moment

[CeyCrypteon]

Do we really need to consider the environmental damage caused by bitcoin mining as significant in the world when there are so many other environment damaging work done in the world such as deforestation, Transportation and other major areas but bitcoin mining causing environmental damage is shown frequently through media and other sources which I think due to lack of understanding about the good that it does

[TheClownSong]

I dont think mining bitcoin damaging the earth environment because it doesnt consume too much energy.
The factories in the world are worse than bitcoin mining xompany. What i know, mininng bitcoin only required electricity.

Its true, from what i am ready, bitcoin mining consumption not more than 1% from global capacity. Beside that, electricity technology always improve and right now many ways to harvest energy from nature. Bitcoin not damaging environment

[jayveerastrullo]

So first anyobe can do mining. For mw mining doesn't realkt causing environmental damage as long as you pay it only damage your pocket or wallet. You pay electricity for you to mine whenever you want it doesnt damage anything. But maybe it helps because once you gain from it you can help or donate money to preserve things.

[stayeduptolate]

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...

There was a news that I heard and I think this is the biggest rumours of this era that in the coming decade, bitcoin will use double the amount of electricity as used by the entire world currently and I think this is the biggest joke of the time as we all know that the only requirement for operating bitcoin is the internet and it does not even use that much of internet also and even for the mining of bitcoin, I think that much of electricity is not required so I don’t think that bitcoin is causing any damage to the environment.

[franky1]

There was a news that I heard and I think this is the biggest rumours of this era that in the coming decade, bitcoin will use double the amount of electricity as used by the entire world currently and I think this is the biggest joke of the time as we all know that the only requirement for operating bitcoin is the internet and it does not even use that much of internet also and even for the mining of bitcoin, I think that much of electricity is not required so I don’t think that bitcoin is causing any damage to the environment.

if we stuck with GPU mining. then yes todays hashrate would require 140% (1.4x) (the world and then half again) electric supply
but the community have mitigated against that with asics.

currently today with this current generation of asics (not last gens bad mathematical statistic) we are at LESS than 0.1%
and if rumours are true of a 7nm asic of 28th and 0.8kwh... we would be at 0.3% at current hashrate
which means the hashrate can triple from octobers suggested 7nm release.. and still be below this summers 0.1% international usage

now. putting that stuff aside.
power companies make excess energy. they love it when industry buys the excess. and they can expand because that excess was waste is now paid = 100% profit of the waste for the energy company. so they have more funds to expand and add more generators/solar
thus help grow more production due to growing demand. thus the percentage used doesnt exceed percentage generated.

and putting that aside
we are at 20twh so let pretend 50% is in china  (its less but shh dont poke the propagandists)
10twh bout out of chinas 830 EXCESS
that means using current asics. hashrate can go 83x and still be of no concern.
using next gen asics 249x
that means at lets say 50exa now
things can go to 12.25 zetahash (12450exa) before bitcoin even starts to touch regular consumed utility.

which is plenty of time and profitable income for power companies to expand

now i know people will shout limited supply if water for hydro.
ill just leave these crap pictures here.. hint.. recycle the water. dont let it just flush downstream

[nightfury]

Does bitcoin mining really cause environmental damage? I think no because bitcoin mining is a digital process of mining the so called digital gold and you can set your mining rig in your house or at the back of your bakcyard if you're doing mining farm. Unlike the traditional ones where they dig deep into the mountains and use some chemicals just to extract gold out from the land. Additionally, let's not forget that bitcoin is digital and we don't need to cut for trees just to make a printed copy of it.

[VickyRobin]

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

I totally agree with you. For me, bitcoin mining just cost a small amount of energy and not harm to our ecosystem

[franky1]

so now as of day 3.. the same water that fills the main reservoir gets reused 3 times.
production: so thats 3x electrical production
capacity: reservoir + 2x 0.003~ of a reservoir to hold and reuse the same water twice to get the 3x production

Oh my god, you've just invented the Perpetuum mobile!!!
We can build 100 dams and from a single river, we will have infinite energy....

Of course, if we exclude the fact that the Colorado River, for example, has only a 270m drop from the Hoover Dam till the Ocean and the dam itself stand 160 m on top of the water level before the drop. .

And the pee example.....
Have you calculated if you can produce enough energy with your urine to lift a bottle of water so you can drink it?
On the energy required to lift your body up so you can actually pee?  

Common Franky, what's next?  Flat earth?

funny guy
but logic is not your friend here
no where in the example is showing the watr going back upstream
in short im not perpetually drinking my own pee.
in short whats happening is its a chain gang oral sex orgy of golden shower.
someone below me drinks mine. and generates energy from the same pee that originated from me
someone below them drinks from the middle person. and generates energy from the same pee that originated from me
(p.s.. i never was into golden showers and using this analogy made me cringe.. may i never use this analogy again. but i hope it atleast sparked the idea in easy form for others to understand.)

now take one more look at the picture of the chain of reservoirs/dams...
now going from left to right i shall name them for you.

be aware...(shock warning)
once i name them you can google it. and see that its not perpetual nor is it a fantasy dream. and it is infact possible
left: hoover dam
middle Davis dam
right Parker dam

PS. if davis and parker didnt exist. colorado would make 18% less power
and davis and parker can expand..

[stompix]

~

funny guy
but logic is not your friend here
no where in the example is showing the watr going back upstream
in short im not perpetually drinking my own pee.
in short whats happening is its a chain gang oral sex orgy of golden shower.
someone below me drinks mine. and generates energy from the same pee that originated from me
someone below them drinks from the middle person. and generates energy from the same pee that originated from me
(p.s.. i never was into golden showers and using this analogy made me cringe.. may i never use this analogy again. but i hope it atleast sparked the idea in easy form for others to understand.)

now take one more look at the picture of the chain of reservoirs/dams...
now going from left to right i shall name them for you.

be aware...(shock warning)
once i name them you can google it. and see that its not perpetual nor is it a fantasy dream. and it is infact possible
left: hoover dam
middle Davis dam
right Parker dam

PS. if davis and parker didnt exist. colorado would make 18% less power
and davis and parker can expand..

Franky is not about fetishes, it's about the laws of physics

That guy who goes to the 100floor will spend more energy caring that extra 500ml of 'water" to dump on his neighbor than the energy that "flow" of water will generate.

That chain of yours will only work when there is enough water at a reasonable altitude, and even with Colorado which is one freaky river, how much does the Parker dam generate? 10% of Hoover's capacity?
If you don't have the relief needed then you will not be able to extract even 1% of the first dam power.
This is why we have so little hydroelectric powerplants in Europe and this is why the largest river (the Danube) has only one set of two dams in a gorge at the Iron Gates.

You simply can't build those damns everywhere and the energy gain is minimal.
Even the eco-warriors are acknowledging that we have reached 50% of the hydro capacity this planet can produce, there is simply too little left untapped.

Don't you think those solutions would have been implemented everywhere if they would indeed be feasible?

if we stuck with GPU mining. then yes todays hashrate would require 140% (1.4x) (the world and then half again) electric supply
but the community have mitigated against that with asics.

currently today with this current generation of asics (not last gens bad mathematical statistic) we are at LESS than 0.1%
and if rumours are true of a 7nm asic of 28th and 0.8kwh... we would be at 0.3% at current hashrate
which means the hashrate can triple from octobers suggested 7nm release.. and still be below this summers 0.1% international usage

now. putting that stuff aside.
power companies make excess energy. they love it when industry buys the excess. and they can expand because that excess was waste is now paid = 100% profit of the waste for the energy company. so they have more funds to expand and add more generators/solar
thus help grow more production due to growing demand. thus the percentage used doesnt exceed percentage generated.

and putting that aside
we are at 20twh so let pretend 50% is in china  (its less but shh dont poke the propagandists)
10twh bout out of chinas 830 EXCESS
that means using current asics. hashrate can go 83x and still be of no concern.
using next gen asics 249x
that means at lets say 50exa now
things can go to 12.25 zetahash (12450exa) before bitcoin even starts to touch regular consumed utility.

which is plenty of time and profitable income for power companies to expand

I really don't understand why you're so stuck to Asic performance an hashrate..
The thing is pretty simple, the energy consumption is only influenced by the price, nothing else.

You have 10 million in daily rewards then miners will afford to spend 9 million in energy and get some profit.
Bitcoin goes to 60 000, then they will be able to consume x10 more...
It goes to 1 million before the halving ...we're f***.

[franky1]

Franky it's about the laws of physics

That guy who goes to the 100floor will spend more energy caring that extra 500ml of 'water" to dump on his neighbor than the energy that "flow" of water will generate.

That chain of yours will only work when there is enough water at a reasonable altitude, and even with Colorado which is one freaky river, how much does the Parker dam generate? 10% of Hoover's capacity?

firstly. where are you even getting the idea about guy travelling up to 100th floor
where are you getting the idea about energy excersion of me lifting a cup to my lips to drink own pee
where are you getting the idea of pumping water upstream to fill reservoirs...

get them foolish idea's out of your head.
the idea is water is already up stream by this funny thing called the weather....
it all goes downstream
but instead of stopping the river. using the water once and then let it travel un reused. to just give it to the sea.
the idea is to have more dams downstream to then reuse the water as it travels...DOWNSTREAM

by the way its not a problem of physics.. but cost and bureaucracy of digging holes concreting walls and displacing residents in the way.

the reason parker and davis dont make as much is because they are bureaucratically not allowed to be as big as the lake preceding hoover damn.

again not physics.. but politics is the restraint
luckily china and other countries dont have the same political problems as a nevada/arizona debates.

If you don't have the relief needed then you will not be able to extract even 1% of the first dam power.
This is why we have so little hydroelectric powerplants in Europe and this is why the largest river (the Danube) has only one set of two dams in a gorge at the Iron Gates.

the reason the danube doesnt have more dams is because politicians wont allow it as it then stops boats travelling upstream
it seems transporting goods up river is more important then making walls to make electricity down river

You simply can't build those damns everywhere and the energy gain is minimal.
Even the eco-warriors are acknowledging that we have reached 50% of the hydro capacity this planet can produce, there is simply too little left untapped.

the amount of electricity produced is enough for there not to be a NEED. so the priority politically of more electric vs other things the rivers are used for have not had a need to sway the debate.

Don't you think those solutions would have been implemented everywhere if they would indeed be feasible?

it is feasible. its just not needed.
EG in 1920's only X electric was needed. so only hoover and parker was made.. lots of fighting over if should they be made happened back then..
...
1950's demand rose. but wait.. stompix says it cant happen there just aint enough..
i imagine stompix having a vision of the river is saying "im trying captain im giving it all she got(scotty startrek)"
 but then miraculously. davis dam was build.. OMG how is that possible. stompix must have asked himself
.. the answer
because politicians weighed up the politics of relocating people, cost to build. vs the real need of more electric. and it was decided. its worth the cost.(physics was not the problem

asiccs

I really don't understand why you're so stuck to Asic performance an hashrate..
The thing is pretty simple, the energy consumption is only influenced by the price, nothing else.

You have 10 million in daily rewards then miners will afford to spend 9 million in energy and get some profit.
Bitcoin goes to 60 000, then they will be able to consume x10 more...
It goes to 1 million before the halving ...we're f***.

actually you will find this mindset strange but.
when a miner is willing to pay $6k to mine 1btc. what he also sees is he is commited to $6k for a year. because he has already prepaid the asics and the electric equivelent to that for a year

now if the price goes down below the $6k he is paying.. he actually thinks.. well there is no point buying new equipment this week. but i can buy btc on the market below $6k. and actually turn off some rigs. meaning they can renegotiate the electric allotment they have not used this week. to be allowed to be used at the 53rd week

now if the price rises. they are not forced to do anything... they can all just mine at the same rate. and spend their profits investing in other businesses (yep they do that)
or replace thir rigs with less costly equipment. so that they can let the energy companies give them a few extra weeks extension at the end of the year because they didnt need to use it during the year...

heres a thought for you
if mining is at a 43terrahash month minimum.. ($5800 at per btc mining COST) (i done the math it works out. its in my post history if your bored)
then knowing the btc PRICE is only a bit above that..  so in your mindset. miners in december should have been mining at 120terrahash. because PRICES were 3x so hashrate could/would/should have been 3X 'because they could afford to'

sorry but no. it dont work like that.

if you get a salary. and then suddenly get a pay rise. if your just going to use your pay rise to work even harder always chasing the oppertunity and hope of a pay rise.. then thats you stuck in a perpetual cycle of only ever 'living to work'..
smart people keep the profit. and go on vacation. invest in things. treat their kids to new toys and gadgets. renovate their homes.
if you got a 3x payrise and you only use that to then do 3x more work.. i feel sorry for your family

you will see miners in the MAJORITY only increase 5-10% as a planned periodic growth. if bitcoin went to $1m a coin in under 2 years. you wont see mining pools jump to network hash of 6.6zetahash overnight (using the metrics of this generations ASICs)($900k)

they would go on vacation. and keep at their slower progressive hashrate..

ill give you a hint. sustainable price rises that dont crash is due to mining pushing up prices and then buying up coin if the price goes down...
not where the price makes the hashrate jump.

heres another hint.
october 2013 happened because miners pushed the price up becaus everything switched from GPU to ASICS.
asic miners were making a profit and going on holiday. GPU miners cried as they couldnt profit gpu mining. so they just bought coin..
(bitcoin history asics released october 2013)

now the december 2017 spike (caused by banking institutions buying up coin to settle with certain bitcoin entities contracts that completed midnovember) the spike of that buyup DID NOT cause mining pools to ramp up their hashrate to 120 terrahash in december.

again price does not ramp up hashrate. but hashrate does ramp up sustainable price...

[stompix]

So franky:

firstly. where are you even getting the idea about guy travelling up to 100th floor
where are you getting the idea about energy excersion of me lifting a cup to my lips to drink own pee
where are you getting the idea of pumping water upstream to fill reservoirs...

I never said to pump water up to fill the reservoirs
I was strictly talking about efficiency in your golden example.

Rather than recycling the water that guy will eliminate from the x floor, it's more efficient to let him pee at the entrance than having the elevator carrying him with the extra weight.

but instead of stopping the river. using the water once and then let it travel un reused. to just give it to the sea.
the idea is to have more dams downstream to then reuse the water as it travels...DOWNSTREAM

by the way its not a problem of physics.. but cost and bureaucracy of digging holes concreting walls and displacing residents in the way.

Franky, let's stick to the Danube since I've brought this up.
The Danube drops 32 meters from the Iron gates in 1000 km.
You will have to dig 20 times more earth than the Panama canal to create a dam and deepen the river bed to make the water flow to the sea after the new dam. Not even talking about what will happen to the ports water pumping stations that are going to have to lift water from 30 -20 meter deeper for the population

You're going to spend more energy doing that than the powerplant will produce in a millennium

the reason the danube doesnt have more dams is because politicians wont allow it as it then stops boats travelling upstream
it seems transporting goods up river is more important then making walls to make electricity down river

You're not familiar with how things are in Europe. 
The Canal de la Marne au Rhin has no more than 154 locks, one every 2 km 

Switching to hashrate

now if the price goes down below the $6k he is paying.. he actually thinks.. well there is no point buying new equipment this week. but i can buy btc on the market below $6k. and actually turn off some rigs. meaning they can renegotiate the electric allotment they have not used this week. to be allowed to be used at the 53rd week

now if the price rises. they are not forced to do anything... they can all just mine at the same rate. and spend their profits investing in other businesses (yep they do that)
or replace thir rigs with less costly equipment. so that they can let the energy companies give them a few extra weeks extension at the end of the year because they didnt need to use it during the year...

Everything is right if we consider this a close game.
But when the price goes up, so does the number of miners, which start with new equipment and new costs.

if mining is at a 43terrahash month minimum.. ($5800 at per btc mining COST) (i done the math it works out. its in my post history if your bored)

If you really have said something like this....I'm starting to feel disappointed.
You've calculated the costs per BTC? Common!!!

then knowing the btc PRICE is only a bit above that..  so in your mindset. miners in december should have been mining at 120terrahash. because PRICES were 3x so hashrate could/would/should have been 3X 'because they could afford to'

sorry but no. it dont work like that.

you will see miners in the MAJORITY only increase 5-10% as a planned periodic growth. if bitcoin went to $1m a coin in under 2 years. you wont see mining pools jump to network hash of 6.6zetahash overnight (using the metrics of this generations ASICs)($900k)

It didn't because there wasn't any miner left to be sold and added to the network.
Price for miners jumped to even 3000$ for a used s9 first generation in December.
If the price goes x10 in a week miners will not be able to add new gear even if they wanted to, mining equipment is not bread, hasn't the last video card shortage taught you that?

[10BTCaDay]

The production of bitcoin if it harms the minimum, because in time this pays off, if there was a lot of damage and there was no benefit, then the country would not extract bitcoin.

[jakezyrus]

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

I totally agree with you. For me, bitcoin mining just cost a small amount of energy and not harm to our ecosystem

that will depend on miners . some miners uses a lot of hardwares to make mining profitable and it do uses a lot of energy or electricity , it also causes a lot of noise which can be considerd a polution .

i forgot , the hardware that they use in mining can also cause air polution to the environment .  therfor mining a crypto do have an effect to our mother earth but not as big as the actual mining .

[popsywura]

There will always be a negative nature effects in any profitable futures. Bitcoin mining is not an exception. The power consumed by mining bitcoin is one of the effects. Thats why its difficult to engage in bitcoin mining in most of the developing countries  because of the power supplies in those countries is not efficient and power generating there is very cost.
So, essential one of the major things to consider in bitcoin mining should be power generating system.

[Dylan Bargeman]

For one, all that energy is turned into heat, so it can be used for (gasp!) heating. Let’s also not forget that the financial industry, including the segments cryptocurrencies will eventually replace, is also using energy for e.g. the heating and lighting of the buildings where employees work. So, some or most of the energy that bitcoin mining consumes will not come as a surplus but as a displacement.
I also expect cryptocurrencies with more conservative energy use emerge even within the PoW family. For example, it would be interesting to see something where the level of security for a transaction was proportional to its value.

[NivelMac]

No. Bitcoin mining don't cause environmental damage. It just cost energy. I'm sure about that.

[Kim Addington]

I think it's a huge problem. People saying "but the old system wastes more" don't realize that we should be comparing it to what the next generation of tech can achieve, not to the legacy system.
Both the inflation schedule and the use of PoW are held sacrosanct in BTC circles, so I do not see a clear solution.