Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument

[hector3115]

Compared to many other areas of our lives, bitcoin is the greenest industry possible.

[1714990277]

1714990277

[1714990277]

1714990277

[1714990277]

1714990277

[1714990277]

1714990277

[fillippone]

Compared to many other areas of our lives, bitcoin is the greenest industry possible.

Exactly.
We already pointed the fact that Bitcoin is one of the few industries where the total consumption is accounted and scrutinised.
What about the Christmas Light  industry?

[dkbit98]

We already pointed the fact that Bitcoin is one of the few industries where the total consumption is accounted and scrutinised.
What about the Christmas Light  industry?

Now they say Bitcoin is bad, sun is bad and animals like cows are also bad because they create lot of pollution, they should be killed, and we need to eat only synthetic meat (as per dr. Bill Gates and other 'experts' like him).
How about that masks we are all forced to put on are faces every day even if we all know they don't protect us from anything more than polluted air in best case scenarios.
Cheap masks should be used only one time and then thrown away, creating millions and billions more junk that is really polluting our environment but nobody is talking about that.
I learned something new in last two years, villains from comic books actually exist in the real world.

[fillippone]

Bitcoin Magazine wrote a nice article on this topic, that apparently is the hot one (pun intended).


BITCOIN POWER: THE ENERGY OF A MONEY

The energy sector is seeing a complete paradigm shift:

• Bitcoin’s monetary network effect
• Monetization of energy
• Leads to an arms race of energy tech becoming more and more efficient and productive
• Cheap energy production allows for cheap energy utilization
• Cheap energy utilization allows for cheap manufacturing, mineral mining and product R&D

The author focuses on the efficiency improvement the mining industry can give to the power production chain.

[tinopener]

The thing that annoys me most is that although people are aware that a lot of crypto is mined using green energy, some will say:

"Oh, but that green energy could be used for something else".

This seems like a paradox to me, as that energy wouldn't have been brought online if it wasn't for crypto mining.

These green energy companies are hardly going to start creating energy if there are no customers for it.

[ampu]

I've heard a lot about Bitcoin destroying the environment. I wonder if other industries do not destroy the environment?
Suck oil from the ground up and burned; creating plastic and discharging it into the ocean; exploiting trees to serve the needs of home furniture; ...
All of the above industries also destroy the environment.
Bitcoin provides a financial and anti-fraud solution. Applying Bitcoin will benefit the world trillions of dollars lost through the use of financial system failures.
Comparing the negative and beneficial sides of Bitcoin is still better than dozens of industries out there.

[Kakmakr]

The argument is that China is mining the most bitcoins in the world and they are the country with the most "Coal" plants, but they also forget that China is also the country with the most hydro electric plants in the world. (most of the large mining farms use hydro electricity to power their mining farms) and hydro electricity are a renewable energy source.

Look at this : https://www.statista.com/statistics/474799/global-hydropower-generation-by-major-country/

Also compare Apples with Apples and look at the combined power that are used by the Banking industry to power their buildings. (24 hour CCTV / ATMs / IT networks etc..) 

[stompix]

Recent studies show that bitcoin mining uses 39% energy from renewable sources (solar, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, etc.) and 25% from energy derived from nuclear power and, to a minimum, fossil fuels. This percentage is steadily increasing, especially in China, where the transition to low carbon footprint production is happening more rapidly.

Seems like some researchers need to do their homework again.
One thing we know for sure is that at least 30% of the hashrate comes from good old dirty and more important cheap as f coal.
So the minimum is probably more like the majority, seeing that some of the biggest projects are actually being built on former aluminum smelters close to coal mines even if this happens outside of China.

That being said I don't know why some people are so focused on trying to portrait bitcoin as running on unicorn farts, so it's coal, good, what's the problem? The hospital I was born in ran on coal, from it to the school and kindergarten to which my child goes the hypermarket and the mall in our region everything powered by coal, should I run to a cave and commit suicide because of it?

Mining is business, you go for the cheap thing available, miners don't move their gear a thousand miles because hydropower is good for the environment they do it for $. Bitmain didn't set its main farm in Ordos to help the people by providing jobs, they did it because they could get power ar 2 cents.

[fillippone]

Square released an important white paper about bitcoin power usage.
Bitcoin magazine reported about this:

SQUARE MAKES THE CASE FOR CLEAN ENERGY BITCOIN

In a white paper released today, financial services company Square outlines the opportunity that Bitcoin presents to facilitate a transition to a cleaner and more resilient electricity grid.

The research report, titled “Bitcoin Is Key To An Abundant, Clean Energy Future,” was released as part of Square’s Bitcoin Clean Energy Initiative, an ongoing effort to support companies working to integrate green energy technologies within bitcoin mining. Square also supports Bitcoin projects financially through its Square Crypto arm and offers BTC for sale through its payments app Cash App.

The research paper highlighted the opportunity that Bitcoin presents to accelerate a global transition to renewable energy sources, as Bitcoin miners are uniquely positioned to capitalize and make the most of these sources.

“Bitcoin miners are unique energy buyers in that they offer highly flexible and easily interruptible load, provide payout in a globally liquid cryptocurrency, and are completely location agnostic, requiring only an internet connection,” per the report.

You can read the paper here:

Bitcoin is Key to an Abundant, Clean Energy Future

In this memo, we aim to explain how the Bitcoin network functions as a unique energy buyer that could enable society to deploy substantially more solar and wind generation capacity. This deployment, along with energy storage, aims to facilitate the transition to a cleaner and more resilient electricity grid. We believe that the energy asset owners of today can become the essential bitcoin miners of tomorrow.

Well, while I am skeptic about the fact that is the role of bitcoin miners to drive the evolution of the energy grids, as I see no way how electricity sold to a miner is different from electricity sold to any other customer, I recognised they elaborated more on the “Bitcoin is a battery” idea.
Coupling inefficient renewable project with bitcoin mining operation, could lower the marginal cost of the whole project, helping spreading the renewed le usage.

Obviously what the study do not tell you is why bitcoin mining should be used only in renewable energy plants and not atomic plants, who suffer from the exact same issue of production/demand mismatch.

[amishmanish]

--snip--
That being said I don't know why some people are so focused on trying to portrait bitcoin as running on unicorn farts, so it's coal, good, what's the problem? The hospital I was born in ran on coal, from it to the school and kindergarten to which my child goes the hypermarket and the mall in our region everything powered by coal, should I run to a cave and commit suicide because of it?

Mining is business, you go for the cheap thing available, miners don't move their gear a thousand miles because hydropower is good for the environment they do it for $. Bitmain didn't set its main farm in Ordos to help the people by providing jobs, they did it because they could get power ar 2 cents.

Good point. The free market allocating resources where they are most needed and the most productive.

The OP has many good points. What about the fact that Bitcoin has enabled a whole industry where investors are willing to buy a new class of asset in order to manage their financial risks in the long term?  When was the last time that a "commodity" launched a whole side industry with users and communities focussed towards better financial management?

Can the governments, central banks or private investment banks offer an alternative risk management system? What would it cost to keep it running?

This argument relies on the utility of Bitcoin and its importance as a financial innovation. Someone with better data should probably try to put a number on this.

[stompix]

Coupling inefficient renewable project with bitcoin mining operation, could lower the marginal cost of the whole project, helping spreading the renewed le usage.

Bitcoin mining and renewables in the form of solar and wind are not making a good combination.

The whole idea of a battery is to accumulate power when is excess production and supply it back when there is demand, bitcoin mining is not storing energy, it's consuming non-stop the same amount of power. While it helps burning energy when there is extra production it also drives up consumption when there is peak demand during the daytime.

A miner running on solar power will have to come up with at least 3 times the consumption as storage capacity assuming no day without sun, a single S19pro burns in 18 hours 60kwh, a tesla powerwall has 13.5kwh, a battery on the entry-level tesla S is 70kwh.   The cost is simply prohibitive.

Obviously what the study do not tell you is why bitcoin mining should be used only in renewable energy plants and not atomic plants, who suffer from the exact same issue of production/demand mismatch.

Atomic plants are actually the best match for bitcoin mining.
Unlike solar who delivers power at the peak time for demand and goes black at night, atomic power's weakness is that it can't shut down at night and power up at daytime, nuclear power while reliable is not that easy to turn on and off. Bitcoin mining could take advantage of this excess power that is produced when nearly nobody wants it.
Bitcoin mining and nuclear power are a perfect match, constant power needs, production is not influenced by weather, no need to be near a coal mine and thousands of freight trains carrying fuel, they ran on fuel rods that go for years, and as long as you have some water nearby you can set them in cold areas so mining farms would need no cooling.

But, we're living in an era where the eco-green propaganda would turn install against this idea.

[fillippone]

The whole idea of a battery is to accumulate power when is excess production and supply it back when there is demand, bitcoin mining is not storing energy, it's consuming non-stop the same amount of power. While it helps burning energy when there is extra production it also drives up consumption when there is peak demand during the daytime.

A miner running on solar power will have to come up with at least 3 times the consumption as storage capacity assuming no day without sun, a single S19pro burns in 18 hours 60kwh, a tesla powerwall has 13.5kwh, a battery on the entry-level tesla S is 70kwh.   The cost is simply prohibitive.

In the Grossman paper I linked in the OP the concept “battery” doesn’t mean to be taken literally, but as a “proxy” meaning bitcoin can “use” excess energy when, or where, it is abundant to pay for it when or where it is scarce. In this sense act as a battery. Not in the physical way, but as a “Store of Energy” meaning.

Atomic plants are actually the best match for bitcoin mining.

I am wondering what is keeping energy companies to install on massive mining operations at their plants. They would pay for themselves.

[icopress]

My 2 cents .. I wouldn't be surprised if, 15 years from now, the leader of the S&P 500 is not a tech company or an oil and gas corporation, but energy giants, the majority of whose profits will come to mining, (perhaps this is an overly abstract statement, but still). I am certainly not an expert in mathematical forecasting, but I think that energy consumption by 2035 will increase by at least 1000%. I just assume that if energy consumption is already at almost 130 terawatt hours this year, then taking into account inflation and electricity prices in 10 years, it will not be difficult to calculate the ratio to the exponential growth of BTC.

[stompix]

In the Grossman paper I linked in the OP the concept “battery” doesn’t mean to be taken literally, but as a “proxy” meaning bitcoin can “use” excess energy when, or where, it is abundant to pay for it when or where it is scarce. In this sense act as a battery. Not in the physical way, but as a “Store of Energy” meaning.

Yup, I understood that, I was just adding to the idea on how this regulation of consumption could be done, and how it can't be done without investments and investments mean $ which would simply turn miners to the nextcheapest possible thing.
And no, I don't agree with the paper, especially since from the first paragraph

Bitcoin miners are unique energy buyers in that they offer highly flexible and easily interruptible load

That's the bs in it, and every miner knows this, miners are not flexible, miners need constant interruptible power, a miner that switches on and off for 12 hours at a time will simply have a tremendous disadvantage, he can't simply stop mining for a few hours than mine double the next to compensate and gear gets easily outclass, you don't have a decade to achieve ROI and profit like in an aluminum smelter.
As for the easily interruptible load, everyone sees what's happening when miners stop mining, this ain't going to work.

Sorry but that paper holds as much truth in it as a paper from the oil companies or big pharma or PETA.
It's a heavily biased thing published by people who have bet a lot of money on BTC, it's simply lobbying material, yeah, it's good for "our side" but that doesn't make it more accurate than it is.

I am wondering what is keeping energy companies to install on massive mining operations at their plants. They would pay for themselves.

Nothing!
Well, right now, the lack of mining gear, but previously and fast forward from 6 months in the future nothing.
It could be money, gear does not come cheap, but other than this, nope, nothing.
It like asking what keeps the average Joe from buying bitcoin? It's their choice of doing business.

[amishmanish]

My 2 cents .. I wouldn't be surprised if, 15 years from now, the leader of the S&P 500 is not a tech company or an oil and gas corporation, but energy giants, the majority of whose profits will come to mining, (perhaps this is an overly abstract statement, but still). I am certainly not an expert in mathematical forecasting, but I think that energy consumption by 2035 will increase by at least 1000%. I just assume that if energy consumption is already at almost 130 terawatt hours this year, then taking into account inflation and electricity prices in 10 years, it will not be difficult to calculate the ratio to the exponential growth of BTC.

That may very well be how things come to pass IF, and it is a BIG if, people, corporations and regulators realize Bitcoin's importance as the only trustworthy PoW currency of the new financial world. The way finance has functioned in the last few decades, there has been a lot of regulation but zero accountability for the people that move money across oceans and manage it in various ways to make the most out of retail investors and "markets", in general.

Again, for all the silly estimations of the Electricity consumed by Bitcoin, the detractors should know that the Bitcoin network will continue even if it is just a million home miners instead of concentrated operations. How many million households consume similar energy for their heating or cooling needs?

Bitcoin and the entrepreneurial initiatives it is unleashing are an urgent need. The increased usage of blockchain can make several current processes much more energy efficient. There can never be a comparison of Bitcoin's energy cost without calculating the social/ economic/ entrepreneurial and efficiency benefits that it is giving. If we start calculating the energy cost of every useful human activity then there are multiple of them that can be stopped without losing any benefits.

[btc-room101]

Currently there are about 900 bitcoins generated each day by mining worth about $50 million dollars.

Miners must be spending at least half of that on electric so say 25 million a day.

Back of the envelope calculations but I bet I'm pretty close.

Since the world isn't 100% powered by green energy, any cut in mining will be pretty much a cut in hydro-carbons.

I bet you disagree with this though

I think the OP is crossed with Trump&Limbaugh, but that's fine.

It doesn't matter, once COAL mined BITCOIN in CHINA is halted, lets let the OP find new sources of cheap power for the miners.

The USA,RUSSIA, &CHINA agree on this issue.

BTC is a waste of energy, it one btc buys 1,000 barrels of oil, so who cares about energy costs, or how many ton's of coal must be burned?

It doesn't really matter about the argument, what matters is the scale of wasted energy. All people are asking is you get over it, its coming down.

Wasting energy the scale of an entire country say Argentina, is not something to defend.

We already know the BTC community don't give a shit about the world's environment, that they only care about getting rich, while locked down under COVID.

IMHO the BITCOIN-ORG-COMM shouldn't even be in this debate, allocate them say a few 100 watts per miner, and then its up to them to figure out how to find the green energy they need.

Where this is all going is 99% tax on BTC, which is probably what the IMF wants, and the BITCOIN-ORG as well. Outcomes are always pre-planned.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

I think the reason that people are lumping bitcoin with being a contributor to environmental problems is because the world still uses more fossil fuels for electricity rather than renewable resources and with the narrative that bitciin consumes a lot of electricity, it will be definitely be blamed but we know that it isn't the case.

[fillippone]

I think the reason that people are lumping bitcoin with being a contributor to environmental problems is because the world still uses more fossil fuels for electricity rather than renewable resources and with the narrative that bitciin consumes a lot of electricity, it will be definitely be blamed but we know that it isn't the case.

Bitcoin is a user of electricity.
It’s not bitcoin fault if such electricity is produced using dirty sources.
It’s not bitcoin’s scope to shift energy production towards cleaner sources, but definitely can help.

[fillippone]

A collection of resources from my fellow Italian bitcoiner Giacomo Zucco:




Here is the List:

• Proof of Work, a pictorial essay by Adam Gibson
• Bitcoin's Energy Consumption by DerGigi
• The Last Word on Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption by Nic Carter
• Bitcoin Does Not Waste Energy by Parker Lewis
• Bitcoin Doesn't Waste Electricity by BeautyOn
• Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work by Truthcoin

[dkbit98]

Adding more interesting recent information to this topic because I think bad news propaganda against Bitcoin is going to get worse in near future, so we need to have more debunking information about this topic.

Nic Carter wrote and posted interesting new article for HBR Harvard Business Review explaining how much energy Bitcoin actually consumes.
We hear people talk a lot about Carbon Emissions (btw we are all made of Carbon so think about that) for Bitcoin and confusing it with energy consumption, but various research are showing that between 39% to 72% of all energy used for mining Bitcoin is actually hydro energy.
Interesting thing is that Bitcoin mining consumes energy that can be spent anywhere in the world and Bitcoin doesn't have that limitation like all other applications that need to be near energy sources.

In other article written by Hass McCook we can see great comparison made for energy consumption for Bitcoin, Gold, paper currencies and banks.
We can see that much more energy is spent and much more CO2 is produced with combined gold mining, making of gold jewellery and gold recycling  than for Bitcoin mining.
If we look at all Banking system and ATMS than we can see multiple times higher numbers according to McCook research with 400 milllion CO2 produced and 700 TWh energy used.
Maybe we still do need to use current banking system everyday but imagine how much energy would be saved if we didn't have ATMS anymore and if we stop making more gold jewellery.

This image speaks louder than words:


source archive