Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument

[Karartma1]

Amazing thread fillippone, thank you very much for having collected the most comprehensive articles selection currently available to destroy the utter shitty arguments against bitcoin and its so-called energy problem.
I see no problem, anyway

[1714785005]

1714785005

[1714785005]

1714785005

[NotATether]

Different Energy Efficient Algorithms have been designed and available since 2013,
but bitcoiners don't want to give up their tried and true PoW.
That fine, until it's not fine , and that day is approaching faster than any of us know.

It dumbfolds me why the entire media (and alarmingly some people here) are so focused on changing Bitcoin's algorithm when the real problem is reducing the power consumption of mining hardware and mining farms.

If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.

And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!

But no, "PoW is bad" and the dev community should get a deadline to hardfork to PoS. Do people even realize that the largest bitcoin wallets (that will ultimately influence PoS distribution) are either dormant or belong to corporations or the FBI?

[icopress]

Yes, you are right, because then the rich will become even richer. But still, there are far fewer positive aspects of PoS than negative ones (for example, the fact that staking requires storing coins in a hot wallet). Although PoW also has disadvantages, given the existing monopolies on the production of ASICs and chips ... but one way or another, the main thing is that the energy expended is a real resource.

As for the allegedly high consumption of electricity, I am not worried about such speculative statements, at least because no one has reliable data on how much and what type of electricity is spent on Bitcoin mining, (in the sense that the calculation of energy consumption is a theoretical figure based only on the complexity of the network). No one takes into account that the lion's share of energy costs, depending on the time of the year, are renewable energy sources. I do not know the exact numbers to assert, but it seems to me that most of the hashrate is in China also for the reason that BTC takes on excess energy that cannot be sold. 

[fillippone]

These are only two examples, but many others are there: China-coal powered bitcoin mining is only an accident in time. The competition will drive miners toward more economic sources of energy.

Greenidge says N.Y. bitcoin mining operation to be carbon-neutral by June 1

(Reuters) – Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc said on Friday it will operate an entirely carbon-neutral bitcoin mining operation at its upstate New York facility starting on June 1.

The company said it will purchase voluntary carbon offsets from a portfolio of U.S. greenhouse gas reduction projects. The company converted its power generation operations from coal to natural gas in 2017.

Cap and Trade are a widely available mechanism to allow polluting industries to offset their emissions and incentivising them to lower the total amount of emission.


ARGO BLOCKCHAIN BUYS HYDRO DATA CENTERS TO REALIZE GREEN BITCOIN MINING VISION

Cryptocurrency mining firm Argo Blockchain has continued its move toward environmentally-friendly bitcoin mining by purchasing two hydroelectric-powered data centers in Quebec, Canada, according to a press release on the London Stock Exchange, on which Argo is listed.

This mining operation could very well be on the opposite side of the trade. Being powered by renewable energy, their emission would be lower than the allowed level, giving them the eventual possibility to sell their carbon emissions.

[Fortify]

Recently I often heard bitcoin critics telling me that "Bitcoin is too polluting", "Bitcoin waste too much energy" or other similar arguments.

Those arguments are as as as bitcoin, even Satoshi discussed those have been debunked a few several times, but I am trying here to organise the material to counter those accusations.

• Mining bitcoin is actually quite environmentally friendly, compared to mining other Store of Value (Gold)
  

I'm only going to address the first point, because you get into some quite convoluted arguments and make trivial defensive statements. First off, I doubt Satoshi envisaged bitcoin becoming anywhere near as popular as it has become the 11 years ago when he posted that statement. Anyone clever enough to produce the code behind Bitcoin would be clever enough to revise their original arguments when presented with new information - being that the network is vastly larger than back then.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/a-comparison-of-bitcoins-environmental-impact-with-that-of-gold-and-banking-2021-05-04

If you refer to an article posted by the NASDAQ exchange this month, then Bitcoin uses twice the amount of energy per year than all gold extraction taking place and payment networks like VISA/Mastercard use 20% of the energy consumed by Bitcoin. They use the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index to determine that Bitcoin is using 113 TWh, more than the whole of Argentina. I think the real question that needs to be asked, is whether the environment cost of this new technology is worth the freedom it gives you from the traditional banking system? I'm not sure it is, and many governments might start using that argument as justification to attempt restrictions.

[FinneysTrueVision]

The whole thing is ridiculous. People want to scapegoat Bitcoin but there isn't one individual thing that will destroy the planet. It is a collection of various things. Disposable face masks are also bad for the environment because they end up in the ocean, in landfills, and throughout the environment where they kill all kinds of animals. Do these twitter environmentalists think people should just not wear masks and make the pandemic worse? Plastic is probably the single worst thing for the environment and none of these people are doing anything to reduce their dependence on this. We can always transition to renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions but it is going to be much harder to replace plastic.

We can do this 'what about' game with just about anything but with Bitcoin you can find many more ways in which it will benefit society. You really can't make those same arguments for Christmas lights or for watching Logan Paul videos on YouTube.

[Karartma1]

These are only two examples, but many others are there: China-coal powered bitcoin mining is only an accident in time. The competition will drive miners toward more economic sources of energy.

Greenidge says N.Y. bitcoin mining operation to be carbon-neutral by June 1

(Reuters) – Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc said on Friday it will operate an entirely carbon-neutral bitcoin mining operation at its upstate New York facility starting on June 1.

The company said it will purchase voluntary carbon offsets from a portfolio of U.S. greenhouse gas reduction projects. The company converted its power generation operations from coal to natural gas in 2017.

Cap and Trade are a widely available mechanism to allow polluting industries to offset their emissions and incentivising them to lower the total amount of emission.


ARGO BLOCKCHAIN BUYS HYDRO DATA CENTERS TO REALIZE GREEN BITCOIN MINING VISION

Cryptocurrency mining firm Argo Blockchain has continued its move toward environmentally-friendly bitcoin mining by purchasing two hydroelectric-powered data centers in Quebec, Canada, according to a press release on the London Stock Exchange, on which Argo is listed.

This mining operation could very well be on the opposite side of the trade. Being powered by renewable energy, their emission would be lower than the allowed level, giving them the eventual possibility to sell their carbon emissions.

These are great news! Not only there's an ever-growing industry ready to mine bitcoin taking into account low-carbon sources but also considering, eventually,  to sell carbon emissions too. Dear Elon, are you regretting being a bit gullible on the bitcoin environmental disaster?

[stompix]

If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!

That's now how mining works.
You can look back at the advance in hashing power per watt and you will see that despite constant progress the actually energy consumption has still grown.
A more efficient s21, for example, will simply make people buy 11 of those instead of 10 as for the same amount of power you can get a bigger slice from the reward.
Bitmain could launch a miner that makes 1Petahash for 2kW, the consumption will not go down once they roll out all those miners, it's just that the hashrate will explode and that's all.

What can make the consumption drop is a price decrease, and although I pray it doesn't happen we might test it by the end of the period, below 40k any s9 generation miner running with more than 10cents/kwh is useless, the s11 will follow up at under $35k.

[ranochigo]

It dumbfolds me why the entire media (and alarmingly some people here) are so focused on changing Bitcoin's algorithm when the real problem is reducing the power consumption of mining hardware and mining farms.

If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.

And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!

Or an increase.

Miners always attempts to maximize their profits and introducing a more efficient ASIC would result in the sustained electrical consumption for that difficulty epoch (and steady increasing as the newer ASICs are deployed). ASICs are usually never retired until the revenue = cost, among other factors but a more efficient ASIC would likely not result in any significant decrease in energy usage.

[NotATether]

If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!

That's now how mining works.
You can look back at the advance in hashing power per watt and you will see that despite constant progress the actually energy consumption has still grown.
A more efficient s21, for example, will simply make people buy 11 of those instead of 10 as for the same amount of power you can get a bigger slice from the reward.
Bitmain could launch a miner that makes 1Petahash for 2kW, the consumption will not go down once they roll out all those miners, it's just that the hashrate will explode and that's all.

What can make the consumption drop is a price decrease, and although I pray it doesn't happen we might test it by the end of the period, below 40k any s9 generation miner running with more than 10cents/kwh is useless, the s11 will follow up at under $35k.

Bitmain and co. can only manufacture a limited supply of miners and I expect that their manufacturing throughput of hypothetical energy-efficient miners would remain the same or close to it.

So it doesn't really matter if one mining ops buys more of those miners than the old ones, because they're buying at the expense of other buyers. Global usage of ASICs stays about the same, assuming that the manufacturers keep selling out as they frequently do.

Miners always attempts to maximize their profits and introducing a more efficient ASIC would result in the sustained electrical consumption for that difficulty epoch (and steady increasing as the newer ASICs are deployed). ASICs are usually never retired until the revenue = cost, among other factors but a more efficient ASIC would likely not result in any significant decrease in energy usage.

Since only the mining farms know how much of the time they keep their ASICs on or how long they will use them for, we currently can't really estimate their total energy usage for sure other than for the inefficient (and probably nonsensical) worst case of leaving them always on, and it's still unlikely this'll be possible if what I call "green" ASICs are ever deployed, but the energy decline should be noticeable in say 10 years when most of the old miners are phased out.

[stompix]

Since only the mining farms know how much of the time they keep their ASICs on or how long they will use them for, we currently can't really estimate their total energy usage for sure other than for the inefficient (and probably nonsensical) worst case of leaving them always on, and it's still unlikely this'll be possible if what I call "green" ASICs are ever deployed, but the energy decline should be noticeable in say 10 years when most of the old miners are phased out.

OK, let's try a different approach.
The s9 does 14Th/s  at 1400W.  Fast forward a year after its deployment you could have all the hashrate in the world assuming only the most efficient gear powered by 500k of those.
The 19pro does 110Th/s at 3250W, 3 times more efficient, assuming most efficient gear could only be achieved by 1.3 million of those, so that's 6 times the power consumption with 3 times more efficient gear.

The efficiency didn't do #$% about consumption, the halving will take care of that far more efficient than anything bitmain could ever build.

As long as the price goes up and so does the reward and you should not expect anything other than higher and higher consumption, this is not traditional mining where you make better and bigger trucks to pull more coal out of the earth more efficiently, this is a competition where as long as you get more $ than what you pay for a kwh spent you plug more and more and more.

Now think a moment from the point of view of a miner, if with the old gear you made 10 cents per 5 cents spent on electricity and with the new gear you make 20 cents for every 3 cents spent, you would simply say I have enough and not buy more gear?  Common.....

[hector3115]

The impact of bitcoin on the environment is minimal, and hardly anyone can convince me otherwise.

[ranochigo]

Since only the mining farms know how much of the time they keep their ASICs on or how long they will use them for, we currently can't really estimate their total energy usage for sure other than for the inefficient (and probably nonsensical) worst case of leaving them always on, and it's still unlikely this'll be possible if what I call "green" ASICs are ever deployed, but the energy decline should be noticeable in say 10 years when most of the old miners are phased out.

I'm sure mining farms cannot afford to leave any working ASICs undeployed. CBECI's estimation is as good as an educated guess and that is all we can work with.

There are far too many factors that can (and will) affect the electrical usage of Bitcoin. Any noticeable decrease in energy consumption of Bitcoin is NOT enough; environmentalist are not happy with high perceived electrical usage in the first place. There is no reason why they would be content with say 30% decrease in electrical usage. When it gets to something that they're content with, Bitcoin isn't secure any more. Arguably, constantly phasing out and replacing ASICs will have significant environmental impact as well. It is not a one-dimension issue as media perceives it to be.

Economic-wise, the electrical consumption will probably not change and remain at a certain equilibrium.

[conected]

The impact of bitcoin on the environment is minimal, and hardly anyone can convince me otherwise.

- If you talk about farm projects in the past, bitcoin mining may not have too much impact on the environment but modern life is showing how big income is through these farms, mining equipment is also being optimized to improve mining problems. And more power consumption is inevitable in bitcoin mining, a few farms may not be affected but this is a chain of farms with a global network, emissions are increasing rapidly and it seems to affect the environment and climate, there is quite a bit of doubt that bitcoin will be one of the major causes of environmental harm in the near future.

[fillippone]

It’s a coordinated FUD attack involving the Vatican too!



I find it ironic the Church vowing against PoW. They should be the first sponsor of the POW!

Actually, if I think better at this, uh, they might like PoS...
/j

[franky1]

If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.

so like if the hash rate was at ~165exa in february 2021 using s19 at 3.25kw for 90thash
and like if the hashrate was at ~165exa in may 2021 using s19pro at 3.25kw for 110tash

well thats then not needing to run as many asic mining machines to achieve the same hashrate
thus less electricity used from the grid.

id call that more then a 10% drop in electric need.

so.. um.. let me just say it
your target goal has been achieved

[lunaBTC 12]

I don't agree with the view that bitcoin is an environmental disaster. Although mining will consume a lot of resources, the total amount of bitcoin issued is certain. Once this value is reached, there will be no loss like ordinary currency. There is no need to print again, and the printing resources will no longer be consumed. So bitcoin is protecting the environment.

[fillippone]

From the "El Salvador's Authoritarian Hipster" a lesson on mining: mining with fossil fuels is only a historical accident. Future is mining with full renewable-clean energy:


https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1402680890057166858?s=21


Qualcosa sembra già muoversi:

https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1402714926800674827?s=21

State owned-clean mining: this is a game-changer.

[stompix]

When I read the news about mining I was praying, please god, please don't let it be solar!!!
But geothermal, yeah, that's one of the few actual solutions for really clean uninterrupted no extra cost mining, not wind and solar that might leave you in the dark for days.

Of course, it's not like they've started digging that well a few days ago and now it's ready to produce energy, it's an older project and the whole powerplant will have 90MW, but the guy deserves it, he really grabbed us out of the bear den, one more week like the last ones and I was going to put bids in the 20k range. Now, all we need is for all of the western US and Canada to understand that geothermal is one hundred times better than playing with solar panels, and a lot more problems, not just bitcoin consumption will be solved.

[fillippone]

When I read the news about mining I was praying, please god, please don't let it be solar!!!
But geothermal, yeah, that's one of the few actual solutions for really clean uninterrupted no extra cost mining, not wind and solar that might leave you in the dark for days.

Of course, it's not like they've started digging that well a few days ago and now it's ready to produce energy, it's an older project and the whole powerplant will have 90MW, but the guy deserves it, he really grabbed us out of the bear den, one more week like the last ones and I was going to put bids in the 20k range. Now, all we need is for all of the western US and Canada to understand that geothermal is one hundred times better than playing with solar panels, and a lot more problems, not just bitcoin consumption will be solved.

I guess the only, big, problem with geothermal is that you cannot decide where to put such plants, but it's linked to your territory. So while some countries are full of geothermal activity and energy, some others might be struggling with this form of energy.