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

[kolbalish]

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

[o_e_l_e_o]

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

This old argument again. Increasing hashrate does not necessarily equate to increasing environmental impact.

The most recent report from CoinShares (available here: https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-mining-network-december-2019.pdf) put 73% of bitcoin's electricity consumption as renewable energy, which is over 4 times the global average and one of the leading industries in the world when it comes to renewable energy.

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. Bitcoin mining is therefore channeling more money in to renewable energy and making renewable energy projects more profitable than they otherwise would have been:

Overall, our findings reaffirm our view that Bitcoin mining is acting as a global electricity buyer of last resort and therefore tends to cluster around comparatively under-utilised renewables infrastructure. This could help turn loss making renewables projects profitable and in time — as the industry matures and settles as permanent in the public eye — could act as a driver of new renewables developments in locations that were previously uneconomical.

[pixie85]

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

[RealMalatesta]

This is really not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Oil companies hurt environment every single day, multitudes of what bitcoin does, and they get support from governments to create more energy and still hurt the world even more thanks to that, yet here we are talking about something high tech.

If you really want to make sure that world is not going worse due to need for energy source, just talk with your representatives about cutting support towards oil companies, regulate them a lot heavier, and instead give that same support towards renewable energy sources. Believe me if the world suddenly starts to only have solar and hydro and wind energy and nothing else ever (not even a single cent made from anything else) the world will be a much better place, with or without bitcoin miners.

[HeRetiK]

This old argument again. Increasing hashrate does not necessarily equate to increasing environmental impact.

It doesn't even equate to increasing power usage. As technology progresses mining hardware does get more powerful and efficient over time.

Also it wouldn't make any sense for miners to spend more money on electricity at a block reward of 6.25 BTC @ USD 10.5k than a year ago at a block reward of 12.5 BTC @ .... well I'll be damned: USD 10.5k. Miners now have half the money to spend on their power consumption than just a year ago. Accordingly the Bitcoin network will currently use only half the power it did just a year ago (give or take and ignoring changes in electricity prices).

[BitcoinPanther]

Well as hashes progresses so is the technology.  The power consumption to reach a certain hashes on previous year is much greater than the electricity needed to reach that same amount of hashes today.  Most of the miner made today have a better energy conservation technology than its previous predecessors.  You can check the  Bitcoin energy consumption  history chart in this site and you will be amazed that regardless of spike in hashes, the power consumption is way lower than the power consumption way back 2018.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Oil companies hurt environment every single day, multitudes of what bitcoin does, and they get support from governments to create more energy and still hurt the world even more thanks to that, yet here we are talking about something high tech.

You don't even need to go as big as oil companies to get a ridiculous comparison. The amount of energy which is simply wasted from people leaving their TVs, sound systems, games consoles, etc. on standby in the US alone is still more than the entire bitcoin network. Compare bitcoin to cash, which needs to be printed, circulated, transported in armored vans, replaced, destroyed, build and run banks, ATMs, cash registers, etc., and the difference in energy use is several orders of magnitude. Why aren't these article writers encouraging more people to abandon cash since it is so inefficient and bad for the environment?

It doesn't even equate to increasing power usage. As technology progresses mining hardware does get more powerful and efficient over time.

A very good point. The Antminer S1, with 180GH per second for 360 watts of power consumption, was giving 0.5GH per joule of energy. The Antminer S19 Pro, with 110TH for 3250 watts of power consumption, is giving 33.8GH per joule of energy, making it approximately 68 times more efficient.

[Lucius]

kolbalish, please don't share such stupid articles that are either paid propaganda against Bitcoin, or are written by people who have no idea what they are writing. So much has been written over the years about how crypto mining is destroying our planet, and all of this has been refuted so many times that it is really ridiculous to even raise the issue.

o_e_l_e_o is posted in one thread that Bitcoin mining was using in total some 0.2% of total electricity produced in the world, and if we add to that that more than 50% is from renewable sources, who normally can say that Bitcoin mining will have some impact on the climate and the environment - which by the way has already been so destroyed that it would take at least 100 years to recover, if the whole world completely switch to renewable energy sources.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin is economically larger than the Czech Republic.  Have the people writing these articles stopped to consider the importance of security in maintaining an economy on that scale?

[Darker45]

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.

1. Energy could actually be stored in many ways. During hours when electric consumption is low, surplus energy generated is temporarily stored so that it could later be used during peak hours. It may not be stored with 100% efficiency but, yes, it could be stored.

2. There is no such thing as "without any environmental impact." The second law of ecology states, "everything must go somewhere." If an oven toaster is contributing to global warming, then so does a powerful Bitcoin mining rig.

Let's try not to be hardcore fanboys of Bitcoin to the point of losing objectivity and clearing Bitcoin of anything negative. But, of course, it must also be true that Bitcoin mining is now gradually shifting to the use of renewable energy.

[Kakmakr]

Oh my gosh!.... not this again.  

Tell me something... What adds more value to the world... all the electricity spend on kids playing online games with powerful GPUs or powering a decentralized payment system that are global and free to use?

Also, how much electricity does the whole Fiat Banking system use, compared to Bitcoin's total hashing power? (Let's add the electricity used to manufacture coins and electricity used to power CCTV/AirCon in buildings/Light/Coffee machines/Photocopiers and Servers and computers ..... shall we list the rest?)

They should really compare Apples with Apples, when they want to bash Bitcoin's electricity usage.  

[o_e_l_e_o]

1. Energy could actually be stored in many ways. During hours when electric consumption is low, surplus energy generated is temporarily stored so that it could later be used during peak hours.

But the infrastructure to do that is costly. You might not be able to access the following paper - https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 - but the bottom line is that storage costs will have to fall by over 90% to be competitive at today's prices. Many facilities do not have enough storage capacity to meet peak production, and electricity is still wasted despite this.

We are also talking about bitcoin incentivizing renewable energy production in areas which were previously uneconomical. These places will not be interested in or able to set up expensive storage facilities when they can instead just sell the electricity directly to miners, and yet without bitcoin, these renewable facilities may not exist at all.

[Lucius]

Also, how much electricity does the whole Fiat Banking system use, compared to Bitcoin's total hashing power?

Well, it never is and won't be important when it comes to this type of journalism - some do it because they are paid, others only because they have a low IQ and are not very talented in computing.

Take for example the currently hot topic in most developed countries, of course it is 5G technology that is supposed to revolutionize the IT sector by providing incredible internet speeds, but apart from the fact that the main controversy is over who will implement this technology (USA at all possible ways is trying to get Huawei out of the game), no one is talking about the need to increase base station density, and that such base stations consume at least twice as much energy as 4G.

According to Huawei data on RRU/BBU needs per site, the typical 5G site has power needs of over 11.5 kilowatts, up nearly 70% from a base station deploying a mix of 2G, 3G and 4G radios. 5G macro base stations may require several new, power-hungry components, including microwave or millimeter wave transceivers, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), faster data converters, high-power/low-noise amplifiers and integrated MIMO antennas. “The bottom line is that, in an increasingly 5G world, telcos will face significant growth in their energy bills,” writes MTN Consulting. “To address this issue, telcos will need to take actions at the organizational, architectural and site levels.”

In addition to the dangerous radiation from base stations that will become even higher, we can count definitely on higher service bills that will result from increased electricity costs - this is just one example that few complain about when it comes to electricity consumption or the impact on human health.

[thirdkiller]

But in the future, electricity consumption for crypto will increase significantly. Is the world ready for this?

[pixie85]

But in the future, electricity consumption for crypto will increase significantly. Is the world ready for this?

The law of supply and demand is in effect. If the world decides it cannot mine Bitcoin because the energy consumption is too high it will not.

Bitcoin doesn't force us to do anything.

It can also be the other way round. The drive to mine BItcoin will be so high that people will build additional power plants. It's not a bad thing. There's so much unused space around the world like Siberia, Alaska, Iceland. Maybe one day we'll have the need to industrialize it.

[gentlemand]

Bitcoin is economically larger than the Czech Republic.  Have the people writing these articles stopped to consider the importance of security in maintaining an economy on that scale?

In what universe? How much actual commerce is taking place? The Bitcoin 'economy' is mainly a bunch of coins being batted around on exchanges or moving to those exchanges.

Maybe it'll eventually deliver benefits in technology and power generation but I think it's a pretty gross and wasteful figure no matter how it's dressed up.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin is economically larger than the Czech Republic.  Have the people writing these articles stopped to consider the importance of security in maintaining an economy on that scale?

In what universe? How much actual commerce is taking place? The Bitcoin 'economy' is mainly a bunch of coins being batted around on exchanges or moving to those exchanges. 

I guess in practice it's difficult to quantify.  But I'd say a fair chunk of the traditional economy is effectively meaningless movements of digital assets too.  If countries couldn't declare their respective finance sector derivatives and debt trading as part of the economy, their figures would be noticeably reduced.

At this stage, it's almost tempting to say in many instances that the meaning of the word "economy" should be changed to "largely digital trades that don't produce anything tangible".

[gentlemand]

I guess in practice it's difficult to quantify.  But I'd say a fair chunk of the traditional economy is effectively meaningless movements of digital assets too.  If countries couldn't declare their respective finance sector derivatives and debt trading as part of the economy, their figures would be noticeably reduced.

At this stage, it's almost tempting to say in many instances that the meaning of the word "economy" should be changed to "largely digital trades that don't produce anything tangible".

Indeed. But the Czech republic makes thing, imports things, taxes things, pays people and is paid and inside it real ish money is flying around between people constantly too. That's a whole lot more activity than Bitcoin's largely meaningless movements.

If someone were to try and figure out Bitcoin's 'real' transactions it would likely be so hideously embarrassing at the moment that whoever did it would probably bury it. Hopefully the future is a whole lot more frisky.

[hatshepsut93]

I guess in practice it's difficult to quantify.  But I'd say a fair chunk of the traditional economy is effectively meaningless movements of digital assets too.  If countries couldn't declare their respective finance sector derivatives and debt trading as part of the economy, their figures would be noticeably reduced.

At this stage, it's almost tempting to say in many instances that the meaning of the word "economy" should be changed to "largely digital trades that don't produce anything tangible".

It's pretty easy to quantify. Czechia has 10 million people, and Bitcoin has maybe 30 millions users by generous estimates. 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, and actual consumer transactions are only a small amount of that.

So, the argument should be not that Bitcoin is more important, but that energy consumption of both Bitcoin and Czech Republic isn't that big on a global scale, so there's really nothing to worry about here. It's just a little piece of trivia rather than some eye-opening fact that should point out how "inefficient" Bitcoin is.

[DatKing]

Although Bitcoin hash rate continues to grow and it is a very good thing for Bitcoin to be stronger, Bitcoin energy consumption rate is not so good. It continually increases and this problem must be solved until it is too late. Maybe, alternative energy sources could be found instead of using electricity.