Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption Grows, Now Comparable to Czech Republic

[Abiky]

As the hash rate reaches new highs, the estimated environmental impact of the network continues to climb as well.

In brief

Bitcoin’s estimated network energy consumption is steadily rising.
A recent peak is the highest figure estimated since the May halving event.
A new journal report suggests that estimates may actually be low.

Interested to know about this article more?- Go through the link- https://decrypt.co/41622/bitcoins-energy-consumption-grows-now-comparable-to-czech-republic

Bitcoin's high energy consumption means that a lot of miners all over the world are securing the Blockchain against external attacks. Rather than being something bad for the environment, it's actually good since it maintains Bitcoin a censorship-resistant cryptocurrency for the world. While many praise PoS' energy efficiency, it's often less secure than the traditional PoW consensus used by Bitcoin today. The high energy consumption is rather a feature than a bug, in my own opinion. I think that as adoption for Bitcoin grows, its hashrate and energy consumption will grow too. There's nothing we can do about this since that's the way Nakamoto Consensus (PoW) works.

Nonetheless, PoW is not perfect. I believe that there's still room for improvement. Developers could work on a solution to reduce Bitcoin's energy consumption without reducing Blockchain security. If that's successfully achieved, then our world would be much greener. For once, I've stumbled into a project named "Bitcoin LE" which aims to reduce Bitcoin's energy footprint in the mining process. If it works as intended, Bitcoin Core developers could adopt BLE's technology in order to make PoW an environmentally-friendly consensus algorithm. As long as Bitcoin maintains its resiliency against external attacks, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

[1714572329]

1714572329

[1714572329]

1714572329

[1714572329]

1714572329

[Silberman]

Not only that, but they also found that bitcoin mining is acting as a "buyer of last resort". Essentially, when renewable projects are producing too much electricity that they cannot sell, bitcoin mining is being set up in those areas to buy and use this excess electricity, which would otherwise be simply wasted.

Not only renewable but most electric energy sources produce more than is used and cannot store it. This surplus can be used by Bitcoin miners without any environmental impact.

Some people even go as far as using old power plants for Bitcoin mining. Places that otherwise would have been shut down and abandoned.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/russian-businessman-buys-power-stations-for-crypto-mining

True but it is obvious those that are making those arguments are doing so in bad faith, they know about all of this but they still put those arguments forward knowing that most people are not going to care enough to investigate the issue and realize their half-truths, this creates a negative opinion about bitcoin especially in all of those that are concerned about the well being of the planet making them to refuse to adopt it and even to boycott bitcoin.

[Abiky]

True but it is obvious those that are making those arguments are doing so in bad faith, they know about all of this but they still put those arguments forward knowing that most people are not going to care enough to investigate the issue and realize their half-truths, this creates a negative opinion about bitcoin especially in all of those that are concerned about the well being of the planet making them to refuse to adopt it and even to boycott bitcoin.

Exactly. Naysayers have always been against Bitcoin one way or another. The ends don't justify the means. Bitcoin's energy consumption is put to a good cause. If it wasn't by the large number of miners supporting the Bitcoin blockchain, the network would've been extremely vulnerable against 51% attacks. The high energy consumption is rather a feature than a bug of PoW consensus. Despite PoS and DPoS' energy efficiency, they're not as secure as PoW. What matters here is security/decentralization/censorship-resistance above anything else. Of course, I'm not discarding the fact that there's room for improvement (in terms of energy consumption). PoW could be improved to a point where it consumes less energy while retaining the same level of security. Everything will depend on both software developers and ASIC hardware manufacturers. They'd need to work together in order to reduce Bitcoin's energy footprint for a cleaner world. With or without improvements, Bitcoin's energy consumption will be high as long as there is a plethora of miners supporting it. There's nothing we can do about this.

All in all, there's no need to worry about Bitcoin's current mining state. It tells us that it's more alive and healthy than ever. As more miners join the network, energy consumption will rise like skyrocket. If this keeps up, we can expect Bitcoin's energy consumption to become comparable to the whole wide world. Once that happens, Bitcoin will become truly impenetrable against external attacks. Just my thoughts

[seoincorporation]

That's a lot of energy for sure. but that only proves how big is this project. Is important to have in mind the fact that miners are more efficient each time, and they consume less energy for each THz, but the growth of the network is something that will not stop.

The PoS would be a solution but only if things get really complex for bitcoin, I feel like it would be the last option.

[int03h]

You mean environmental pollution. Okay, look at the thermoelectric plants, the nuclear power plants, the clothing factories, the leather shoes, the big cattle farms, or anything that can be compared.
Miners make Bitcoin and it's valuable, everyone loves Bitcoin.
The miners aren't annoying people at all, and as a result, the waste from those factories affects the environment and other people.

[Vishnu.Reang]

This actually concerns me. Has any one thought about what will happen, in case the Bitcoin prices increase by 10x to $100,000 per coin? If that happens, then the mining hash rate will increase proportionally and 10% of all the electricity produced in the world will be used for Bitcoin mining. What will happen if the exchange rates hit $250,000? Or $1,000,000? This is not a viable scenario and we need to think about it.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe we haven't recognized the other potential breakthroughs of Proof of Work yet, and how it could build a new platform for a world energy market.

[Carlton Banks]

Now, witch Czechia, all that electric energy goes to support the lives of those 10 millions people, and with Bitcoin it's, let's be honest, just a speculative investment that people hodl or trade

yes, but hashing the block headers is a big part of the investment proposition. it's a basic part of the

you can't have Bitcoin without hashing the block headers to get the next block, it would be trivial to create fake blockchains to confuse the network

and actual consumer transactions are only a small amount of that.

it's impossible to know, and quite frankly none of anyone else's business even if it was possible to discover. further, Bitcoin is designed to make it difficult to know

I think it's a pretty gross and wasteful figure no matter how it's dressed up.

that's because you don't (fully) understand why people are mining Bitcoin

It's amazing that some people don't understand these complete basics: hashing the blocks (which uses energy) makes Bitcoin safe from attack, without it, it wouldn't work at all, any amateur computer admin could create as many versions of the ledger as they liked, and no-one would know which one was the honest one


Satoshi didn't come up with this part of the design to annoy people, but it seems to be doing that anyway (to people who don't get it, at least)

[Lorence.xD]

The solution for mining rigs (large scale rigs) in the case of reducing their environmental impact is by moving it closer to the source. We are in the future, most countries are starting to go for green energy which means that the energy output will improve without a significant or faint impact to the environment. The article only talks about the output of the network but do not point what source they are using (i.e. Nuclear, coal, solar, wind, geothermal etc). This is a pretty small problem if you simply take a stepback.

[Hydrogen]

Environmentally unfriendly hydrocarbon based bitcoin miners are usually subsidized by local governments in exchange for creating regional jobs. Bitcoin mining being a flexible industry with high mobility leans towards it tapping surplus and renewable sources of electricity which are cheaper than coal, oil and other sources of power considered environmentally damaging. The main exception being regions like venezuela with "free electricity" and little in the way of economic or job opportunities. Green sources of power with a lower carbon footprint are the path of least resistance for bitcoin mining ops which generates impetus for them being the industry norm.

A high percentage of bitcoin miners tapping surplus sources of electricity, which are cheaper. Could imply little or no new power plant construction to fulfill growing demand. Which is another key point to consider.

[Wind_FURY]

Now, witch Czechia, all that electric energy goes to support the lives of those 10 millions people, and with Bitcoin it's, let's be honest, just a speculative investment that people hodl or trade

yes, but hashing the block headers is a big part of the investment proposition. it's a basic part of the

you can't have Bitcoin without hashing the block headers to get the next block, it would be trivial to create fake blockchains to confuse the network

and actual consumer transactions are only a small amount of that.

it's impossible to know, and quite frankly none of anyone else's business even if it was possible to discover. further, Bitcoin is designed to make it difficult to know

I think it's a pretty gross and wasteful figure no matter how it's dressed up.

that's because you don't (fully) understand why people are mining Bitcoin

It's amazing that some people don't understand these complete basics: hashing the blocks (which uses energy) makes Bitcoin safe from attack, without it, it wouldn't work at all, any amateur computer admin could create as many versions of the ledger as they liked, and no-one would know which one was the honest one


Satoshi didn't come up with this part of the design to annoy people, but it seems to be doing that anyway (to people who don't get it, at least)

Many people in the forum have not realized how the POW aspect in Bitcoin is the MOST IMPORTANT part of "blockchain technology".

It's POW that solved the Byzantine Generals' problem, it's POW that makes Bitcoin decentralized and therefore censorship-resistant. It's the missing piece of Szabo and others' attempts in making a stateless digital currency.

[roadrunnerjaiv2025]

This is almost like the case of NASA's funding. A lot of people deem the billions of dollars spent on space exploration as a waste since it doesn't directly benefit the people when in fact NASA's annual budget ($22+ billion) is too small compared that that of U.S. Defense (686+ billion). 

Compared to other power-guzzlers out there, bitcoin miners spend an almost negligible amount of energy. Seriously, it shouldn't make the headline.

[Ozero]

This actually concerns me. Has any one thought about what will happen, in case the Bitcoin prices increase by 10x to $100,000 per coin? If that happens, then the mining hash rate will increase proportionally and 10% of all the electricity produced in the world will be used for Bitcoin mining. What will happen if the exchange rates hit $250,000? Or $1,000,000? This is not a viable scenario and we need to think about it.

In my opinion, electricity is not such a problematic issue now. Every year we use more and more energy obtained from alternative sources. The production of solar panels is growing and it is constantly being improved and cheaper. Europe and many other states have even embarked on a policy of rejecting traditional energy sources such as oil and gas, which pollute the environment. Therefore, I am very optimistic about the opportunities in the energy sector.

[semobo]

This is almost like the case of NASA's funding. A lot of people deem the billions of dollars spent on space exploration as a waste since it doesn't directly benefit the people when in fact NASA's annual budget ($22+ billion) is too small compared that that of U.S. Defense (686+ billion). 

Compared to other power-guzzlers out there, bitcoin miners spend an almost negligible amount of energy. Seriously, it shouldn't make the headline.

When haters don't have anything to blame about it then they come up with such an idiotic debates. So no one in this world wasting electricity for no reason?

Lot of rich people uses air conditioning in all over their home even to their garages which shouldn't have any use at all? What about banks they are using electricity and also damaging environment and also occupied lot of spaces in the busy cities.

[Wind_FURY]

This is almost like the case of NASA's funding. A lot of people deem the billions of dollars spent on space exploration as a waste since it doesn't directly benefit the people when in fact NASA's annual budget ($22+ billion) is too small compared that that of U.S. Defense (686+ billion). 

Compared to other power-guzzlers out there, bitcoin miners spend an almost negligible amount of energy. Seriously, it shouldn't make the headline.

For "them", it should. Because they do not understand how ground-breaking POW actually is as the foundation of BITCOIN as a stateless, decentralized, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency.

Everyone promoting "blockchain technology" missed the point.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Seriously, it shouldn't make the headline.

It only makes the "headlines" because crypto "news" sites like CoinIdol, CoinTelegraph, Decrypt, etc., have repeatedly shown that they are click bait trash and will write any old nonsense to get views and money, without doing any research whatsoever and regardless of whether or not it is true. I honestly cannot fathom why people continue to visit these sites.

Streaming online pornography creates as much carbon dioxide as Belgium.
Console gaming creates as much carbon dioxide as Denmark, and PC gaming as much as Taiwan. (Just playing the games, never mind the carbon dioxide from manufacturing and distributing PCs/consoles/games.)
Devices being left on standby creates as much carbon dioxide as the Philippines.

All of these are far higher than bitcoin, but we don't see any headlines saying that if you don't stop masturbating you are going to kill the planet. But sure, lets focus on bitcoin and its 0.05% contribution to global CO₂ production.

[bit-signal]

I believe we haven't recognized the other potential breakthroughs of Proof of Work yet, and how it could build a new platform for a world energy market.

Having a decentralized energy market/ energy routing system (smart grid) where anyone could buy or sell energy to a specific consumer or producer, no matter if he lives in my neighborhood or at the other end of the world. That would incentivise anyone who is capable to produce and sell energy.

[franky1]

last year bitcoin hastrate was at 100exa .. using tech that was the s9 that was 80j/th
this year its 140exa using tech thats the s19 which is 30j/th

simple math
100e * 80j =8000
140e * 30j=3600

so we are using less energy than last year by more then 50%
enjoy

p.s this halving of the electric cost has made it still profitable to mine at a now halved bitcoin reward which is why the price of bitcoin has not doubled in price since the halving. because there is no need to force the price up if its profitable at existant levels

[nienzer]

Bitcoin need more green energy to be more innovative

[Abiky]

When haters don't have anything to blame about it then they come up with such an idiotic debates. So no one in this world wasting electricity for no reason?

Lot of rich people uses air conditioning in all over their home even to their garages which shouldn't have any use at all? What about banks they are using electricity and also damaging environment and also occupied lot of spaces in the busy cities.

I know right? The same people criticizing Bitcoin's energy consumption, are the same wasting energy like crazy in the mainstream world. The most naysayers about Bitcoin are banks as the cryptocurrency presents a threat to the current monetary system. Anyone can say what they like about Bitcoin. But at the end of the day, facts are what really matters. If it wasn't by Bitcoin's "huge" energy consumption, we wouldn't have sound money that's resilient, decentralized, and censorship-resistant. Miners consume energy in order to make the Bitcoin network secure against 51% attacks. When you sum all the miners around the world, you get a big chunk of energy being consumed by the digital currency. This is normal since it's the way PoW works. On the other hand, the PoS consensus mechanism is energy efficient but not as secure as PoW itself. That's why Bitcoin has stayed with PoW consensus since its inception.

The more miners join the network, the greater Bitcoin's energy consumption will be. I wouldn't worry about this since our energy is being put to good use. As long as everything remains as is, Bitcoin will be impenetrable (sort of) against 51% attacks. Just my opinion