Reports of bitcoin environmental damage are garbage

[eternalgloom]

Found this interesting article on Hackernoon, which states that the main source of the negative press surrounding Bitcoin's environmental impact, is completely untrustworthy and unscientific.

Here's an excerpt from the article:  

Almost all news articles that repeat the lie that crypto is an environmental problem can be traced back to one source: Alex de Vries, a twenty-something year old who has zero knowledge of the electricity industry, power system modelling, China, or any related real-world experience. He blogs from home on digiconomist.net. His “reports” are about as unscientific and unethical as you can get.

While claiming to be unbiased and touting “peer reviewed” “academic articles” his site uses incendiary language to describe the bitcoin computers that maintain system security and administration as “consuming huge amounts of energy” which have now, apparently, reached “epic proportions”. This “massive energy consumption” isn’t the biggest problem, though, according to de Vries; it is that “the network is mostly fueled by coal-fired power plants in China”, resulting in “an extreme carbon footprint for each unique Bitcoin transaction.”

Do read the full article, it's very interesting.

https://hackernoon.com/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7

[Lucius]

If all data show that BTC mining is consume about 1% or less of total annual world consumption of electricity, then it is clear that such stories can not be true. Most of such conclusions are based on China coal-fired power plants as main source of electricity, but it is hard fact that almost 80% of China miners are located in Sichuan province and that province is mainly produce electricity from hydro power.

Some other researchers conclude that almost 80% of electricity used for BTC mining comes from renewable energy sources. Potential of such sources is still inadequately exploited, especially in terms of sun and wind energy.

Although hydro power plants produce clean energy, they are not considered as friendly for the environment because of its permanent impact on the habitats of humans and animals. But at this moment we can say that BTC is pretty green if we compare it to some other industries which pollute the environment in incredible proportions over the past few decades.

[Pursuer]

the power consumption of bitcoin mining has never been about power consumption of bitcoin mining!

it may sound strange but if you read between the lines of all those articles you can clearly see that they are all saying the same negative nonsense about bitcoin itself trying to undermine its utility and potential. and they all are ignoring the fact that bitcoin is the only decentralized payment system that has been working seamlessly on a global scale for 10 years.

[eternalgloom]

the power consumption of bitcoin mining has never been about power consumption of bitcoin mining!

it may sound strange but if you read between the lines of all those articles you can clearly see that they are all saying the same negative nonsense about bitcoin itself trying to undermine its utility and potential. and they all are ignoring the fact that bitcoin is the only decentralized payment system that has been working seamlessly on a global scale for 10 years.

Makes you wonder if Alex de Vries has been paid off by companies that benefit from the demise of Bitcoin.
He does put traditional credit card networks into a good light, by making a false comparison to Bitcoin.

The amount of mistakes made by De Vries is simple appalling, like the conclusion that most Bitcoin in China is mined by coal power plants.
If you look up his name on Google, you'll see that his "research" has been published by a pretty big amount of popular news websites

[DeathAngel]

I think there are many worse things for the environment than mining bitcoin & we should look at them long before we question the negatives of mining.

[BrewMaster]

90% of the bitcoin related news websites are desperate for smallest things to publish and get some traffic directed to their shitty website so you can only imagine how a heated topic like the supposed bitcoin's environmental damage could spread like wildfire. and that is exactly what happened, they hyped up the issue by exaggeration and false information and then the click baiters took care of the rest.

[coinycoiny]

Here are a few simple facts.

1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
2. That equates to $5 million a day on electric costs, sure some might be green, but some of that that electricity could be used by someone else that subsequently didn't have the green electric.

So basically bitcoin must be wasting $2 Billion a year that is in effect environmental damage.

If bitcoin increases, more people mine and so the environmental impact is linked very closely to the price of btc.

I hope bitcoin becomes worthless asap.

[AAKODI]

Bitcoin maybe causing an 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

[eternalgloom]

@coinycoiny

If those are indeed facts, you wouldn't mind sharing all the studies that you've read to base those 'facts' on.

Not all energy that goes into Bitcoin mining is suitable for other use.
Take for example the excess energy that a hydro power plant produces, in some cases it's better to actually spend that excess energy than to store it.

Here's one example of what happens when there's excess power:
http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/germany-excess-power/

Also interesting:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/mining-for-cryptocurrencies-could-be-the-future-of-energy-storage/

[r1s2g3]

Here are a few simple facts.

1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
2. That equates to $5 million a day on electric costs, sure some might be green, but some of that that electricity could be used by someone else that subsequently didn't have the green electric.

So basically bitcoin must be wasting $2 Billion a year that is in effect environmental damage.

If bitcoin increases, more people mine and so the environmental impact is linked very closely to the price of btc.

I hope bitcoin becomes worthless asap.

So you think, VISA and MasterCard run without power? Amazon got insight from massive data without any use of power? What do you think about the process of making paper that waste so much water? Every luxury that we use is putting pressure on nature, but they never told you that you should live in Forest/ or nomadic type of life. But they told you do not use BTC because BTC is causing environmental issues.

[coinycoiny]

So you think, VISA and MasterCard run without power? Amazon got insight from massive data without any use of power? What do you think about the process of making paper that waste so much water? Every luxury that we use is putting pressure on nature, but they never told you that you should live in Forest/ or nomadic type of life. But they told you do not use BTC because BTC is causing environmental issues.

Of course they do, but they are massively more efficient then bitcoin. Also, it's in the banks interest to use as little energy as possible whereas bitcoin encourages more people to mine it as the price goes up. If the price goes up by 10 times, energy wasted goes up by the same amount. Stupid, stupid stupid. Anybody who thinks otherwise is also stupid.

[dothebeats]

Here are a few simple facts.

1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
2. That equates to $5 million a day on electric costs, sure some might be green, but some of that that electricity could be used by someone else that subsequently didn't have the green electric.

So basically bitcoin must be wasting $2 Billion a year that is in effect environmental damage.

Hmmm, I wonder where have you pulled off these numbers. If these are facts, where are the statistics, or even a link explaining how do they get such numbers.

If bitcoin increases, more people mine and so the environmental impact is linked very closely to the price of btc.

No. If bitcoin's price increases, more people are trading more than mining. Mining equipment/machines also goes up when the price of 1 bitcoin goes up; they are, at most times, directly proportional to each other, so why would people risk their money into mining when they can just buy bitcoin on the spot and wait for the price to go up? Wouldn't that be practical and easier for them to do so? The environmental 'damage' these people are referring to is really not a problem, and if it is, then why are we turning a blind eye on industries that also utilizes a huge amount of energy? The problem is not on bitcoin's utilization of enormous amount of energy, pseudo-environmentalists.

[BrewMaster]

Here are a few simple facts.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.

you can not make a guess and call it a "fact" instead! so far it is simply your guess.

So basically bitcoin must be wasting

whatever that real number is, why do you think it is "wasting"? just because YOU don't think bitcoin is useful it doesn't mean it is not providing a well needed service to thousands of people worldwide.

[franky1]

more electric is used to keep bottles of Pepsi chilled.

[coinycoiny]

you can not make a guess and call it a "fact" instead! so far it is simply your guess.
whatever that real number is, why do you think it is "wasting"? just because YOU don't think bitcoin is useful it doesn't mean it is not providing a well needed service to thousands of people worldwide.

Its not a guess, its economics. People tend to spend 90 cents if they get a 100 back. If you only had to spend 50 then more people would do it hence the price goes up. If it was more than 100 then people would stop and the price goes down. Economics 101.

If you think its not wasting then you are delusional. But that's true of most bitcoin fans.

[hatshepsut93]

90% of the bitcoin related news websites are desperate for smallest things to publish and get some traffic directed to their shitty website so you can only imagine how a heated topic like the supposed bitcoin's environmental damage could spread like wildfire. and that is exactly what happened, they hyped up the issue by exaggeration and false information and then the click baiters took care of the rest.

Except that it was the mainstream media that spread this crap, I remember well how articles about Bitcoin consuming ALL world's electricity were hitting reddit's front page some time ago, and to this day when someone mentions Bitcoin outside of crypto subs, people jump in with the same statements that Bitcoin is killing the environment. I find it especially ironic, because those comments are most likely made by a middle-class American, who drives a car every day, uses air conditioning, buys a ton of useless items, thus contributing to the global warming much more than Bitcoin.

[eternalgloom]

90% of the bitcoin related news websites are desperate for smallest things to publish and get some traffic directed to their shitty website so you can only imagine how a heated topic like the supposed bitcoin's environmental damage could spread like wildfire. and that is exactly what happened, they hyped up the issue by exaggeration and false information and then the click baiters took care of the rest.

Except that it was the mainstream media that spread this crap, I remember well how articles about Bitcoin consuming ALL world's electricity were hitting reddit's front page some time ago, and to this day when someone mentions Bitcoin outside of crypto subs, people jump in with the same statements that Bitcoin is killing the environment. I find it especially ironic, because those comments are most likely made by a middle-class American, who drives a car every day, uses air conditioning, buys a ton of useless items, thus contributing to the global warming much more than Bitcoin.

Yeah, I've mainly remembered pretty big newspapers who actually published this, they probably sourced their "facts" directly from De Vries himself.
The numbers that were being mentioned back then already seemed exaggerated to me, now it comes out that some of them were completely fabricated almost.

[CaVO32]

more electric is used to keep bottles of Pepsi chilled.

i like this statement! LOL

Here are a few simple facts.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.

you can not make a guess and call it a "fact" instead! so far it is simply your guess.

So basically bitcoin must be wasting

whatever that real number is, why do you think it is "wasting"? just because YOU don't think bitcoin is useful it doesn't mean it is not providing a well needed service to thousands of people worldwide.

one thing i can say, with the introduction of cryptocurrencies especially bitcoin, many people have been served and continue to be served by this crypto revolution. time and money have been saved by utilizing those payment centers that accept bitcoin and other crypto for instance. so i don't see any wasting of energy here. it saves energy instead.

[Blockchainer06]

Although we may not be able to see with the naked eye the harm bitcoin mining has done to our environment, there is no doubt that the bitcoin network will have to reduce its energy consumption before the bitcoin block chain becomes widespread. It is not surprising that regulators are trying to control/reduce electricity consumption by formulating policies and regulations for miners.
Because Bitcoin miners are so sensitive to electricity prices, this will drive research and development in the energy sector and produce more effective energy solutions. It's hard to understand the positive and negative externalities of Bitcoin, so it's hard to say whether the energy consumed by mining is really "worth it". However, if the power consumption of mining is not controlled or efficiency is not improved, if people realize the negative impact of Bitcoin mining on the environment, then its impact on the environment may be irreversible.

[Lucius]

Makes you wonder if Alex de Vries has been paid off by companies that benefit from the demise of Bitcoin.
He does put traditional credit card networks into a good light, by making a false comparison to Bitcoin.

Or he is paid to do what he does, or it is about ignorance or some kind of hate toward BTC, I do not think there's a third reason for what he is doing. What a writer of Medium article think about that person speaks for itself :

Alex de Vries, a twenty-something year old who has zero knowledge of the electricity industry, power system modelling, China, or any related real-world experience...

Whoever visits his site and read all the nonsense he publishes on it, can very easily conclude that he think BTC is main world problem. But I was curious how much energy is spend by all banks in the world in one year, and by some researches it is close to a 100 terawatt hours a year., and BTC is just using 28.67 terawatt hours a year. In addition to this card readers, credit cards and their data centers consume 10% of the global energy consumption.

What is even more important to be emphasized is that BTC mining is using almost 80% energy from renewable sources, so to blame this activity for global climate and environmental issues is a complete nonsense.