Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument

[franky1]

stompix. i was debunking YOU
YOUR version of the scenario where YOU provided limited scope of numbers
and then you went in 2 anal directions.
first sayin aggressively how im wrong becasue its 3 hours all year
then going opposite by showing the different production rates of 3 months
all without realising you were missing the general point

now please be a polite gentleman that does not want to be a drama queen about silly numbers you play hide and seek with
and just say
"ok i get the point. the CONTEXT is about capacity should always exceed demand. so that the excess can be stored"
and then move on
..
and no.. dont even start a new drama that people should never update their electrics in their house. or never update their central heating because "stompix says $6k is evil"

for people that do suffer from multiple day blackouts. they are willing and need to pay the money needed for the convenience.
i only suffer maybe 1 2 hour blackout a year when local maintenance is done or a bad storm so my convenience is valued at about $100 for 20 years

for areas with frequent more substantial issues
heck most companies would pay the initial outlay and then set a electric per kw rate so they get ROI
heck even governments do grants for the initial outlay of utility upgrades

[1715607571]

1715607571

[1715607571]

1715607571

[1715607571]

1715607571

[1715607571]

1715607571

[1715607571]

1715607571

[1715607571]

1715607571

[franky1]

anyway..
back to the topic

.. where were we
oh yea "bitcoin energy disaster"

debunked:
1. if we remained solomining GPU. the electric combined from residents in their basements in non-renewable area's would he higher than the current state where most ASIC farms have great deals with renewable electric companies which the asic farms set up in those regions as far back as 2014

2. if asics themselves were not invented. then the watts/hash would be far far worse
asics evolve to be more efficient in power/watt

[KevinRosa]

A new study by CoinShares questions the criticism that Bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment, and estimates that three-quarters of mining operations are now powered by renewable energy.

Cryptocurrency investment and research companies have concluded that this makes the blockchain industry "more renewable than almost every other large industry in the world."

CoinShares estimated in its report that 74.1% of Bitcoin mining operations use renewable energy.

I do not agree that Bitcoin is the fuse that detonates environmental problems and causes environmental disasters. If I am a mine owner, my wish is that the price of Bitcoin will rise and the cost of mining will decrease. This is in line with the relevant policies of the government where the mine is located. Maybe It will cause carbon emissions problems in the early stage, but as time goes by, it will become more and more inclined to clean energy, such as wind and hydropower. Bitcoin mining will not be criticized for using too much electricity. If you want to make a comparison, the energy loss of the banking system is greater than that of Bitcoin.

According to the latest report provided by Galaxy Data, Bitcoin's energy consumption is much lower than that of the traditional banking system and the gold industry. In the past few days in the turmoil caused by Tesla CEO Musk, the discussion around the use of cryptocurrency energy has been very intense. However, Galaxy Data, established by former hedge fund manager Michael Novogratz, used data to prove that the traditional banking system and the gold industry actually consume more energy than the Bitcoin network.

[fillippone]

Nic Carter is again on the Environmental side of Bitcoin with this new article for Bitcoin Magazine:


THE BITCOIN ENERGY DEBATE IS A MODERN REPRISE OF THE GOLD RESOURCE COST DEBATE

The debate over the resource cost of gold is critical in understanding the present-day fixation with Bitcoin’s energy costs.

AND THE ANSWERS REMAIN THE SAME...
Long before we had the Bitcoin energy debate, we had the gold resource cost debate. The contours were similar: the costs associated with gold refining and extraction were a waste; they were too great relative to a mere fiat standard in which notes could be printed for virtually nothing. Why bother with gold, impassive and unwavering in its supply dynamics, when you could have the cheap and highly configurable paper standard instead? The critique hinges on figures computed by economists finding extremely high resource costs associated with the gold standard. Infamously, in his 1951 essay “Commodity-Reserve Currency,” Milton Friedman criticizes the gold standard on these grounds, calculating that 1.5% of GDP would have to be devoted to the production of gold under a full reserve standard, an estimate he revises up to 2.5% in 1960.

The approach is interesting. He recalls us that many economists demonstrated that mining gold has a cost, but this cost is what preserves the system to grow out of control, events that also bears huge, hidden costs:

Quite similarly, today the most strident anti-Bitcoin voices fixate on its resource costs — and specifically its energy consumption. As with gold, the critics allege that Bitcoin’s resource burden is not just too high but entirely a waste, because to them Bitcoin offers no perceptible utility relative to other monetary and payment systems. As with gold, the constraints imposed by Bitcoin make no sense to westerners raised on a diet of monetary tinkering and steady debasement.
<...>

The debate over the resource cost of gold is critical in understanding the present-day fixation with Bitcoin’s energy costs. The rhetoric is the same; only the names and the jargon are substituted. Today’s critics talk in calm, worried tones about Bitcoin’s concerning ESG characteristics. This sterile corporate speak is of course a euphemism for the following: “I see no value in Bitcoin and hence consider all costs associated with its production and maintenance wasteful.”

A different, more intriguing approach to the question, taking the analogy with gold to a different point.
Very interesting.

[Lucius]

This sterile corporate speak is of course a euphemism for the following: “I see no value in Bitcoin and hence consider all costs associated with its production and maintenance wasteful.”

Sometimes everything essential fits into one sentence, and I believe the author has captured the very essence of the whole anti-Bitcoin agenda. When it comes to Bitcoin, I think there are several categories of people :

• Those who fully understand what Bitcoin is and how it works, and what the benefits of a decentralized cryptocurrency are - and I believe there are very few such people, in a percentage of less than 10% including those who are for and those who are against.
• Those who understand to some extent, but still are very cautious and very susceptible to media mainstream propaganda that continues to successfully promote the agenda "Bitcoin is bad for the environment."
• In the end, those who are very smart and intelligent, perfectly understand what Bitcoin is, are aware that the impact of crypto mining is actually negligible - but they represent a global financial elite that defends the system they have built for centuries in every possible way.

If there's one thing we could learn from all this, it's that those who control the mainstream media shape public opinion - especially things that the average person has a hard time understanding, and Bitcoin is in the category of such things.

[icopress]

People, does anyone have $ 60 billion? ^{[we will talk about the project of a penzhinskaya tidal power plant with a capacity of 100 GW]} I just look at the capitalization of BTC, and I understand that this is not so much money for a project of such a scale ... the point is that the implementation of this utopian idea would forever put an end to the "anti-ecological" discussions. There is one unique place on our planet where the sea level varies ±15 meters, and this is the ideal place to build a tidal power plant.

This project was developed a very long time ago, but they did not start implementation, since the catch is that it needs a colossal infrastructure (as opposed to mining farms, which can be installed on site). Is your mining equipment outdated? No problem, as can switch to liquid hydrogen production (Elon Musk would have turned over in his coffin if he was dead and if the key players in the Bitcoin industry would sell him fuel for Bitcoins). Tell me, am I not a psychopath?

[fillippone]

This project was developed a very long time ago, but they did not start implementation, since the catch is that it needs a colossal infrastructure

I really don't like this project: it is heavily impacting on the local ecosystem.
Also, bear in mind that the true benefit is when bitcoin turn into an antieconomic project economic because miners can profit from it. The perfect example is the Vulcano in El Salvador. Producing Electricity from the volcano is trivial, but it is not trivial to distribute it to the nearest users. IF miners utilise that electricity right on the spot, immediately the project is viable.

Your project, on the other hand, does not depend on miners to be profitable: it could sell the electricity to a city, or a farm to be profitable, and nothing would change.

[CLS63]

Bitcoin is not an environmental disaster. Before it comes to Bitcoin, there are so many things that are really detrimental to the environment. People and companies are really aware of this actually. But they still insist on accusing Bitcoin of being the most harmful thing for the environment.

For example, it's been proved that banks are consuming too much energy (even more than Bitcoin) and really harmful for the environment also. But people don't want to mention it. They are only aiming to blame Bitcoin for something. Why are people like this?  Do they still have problems on absorbing cryptocurrencies?  Are they afraid of Bitcoin for real?

[Dax Robinson]

When new technologies appear, they often have an impact on the environment. Developers at the time may not consider these factors. Bitcoin is no exception. Bitcoin is a powerful tool. In fact, Bitcoin has also gained in finance. Great progress has been made. In essence, Bitcoin is not harmful to the environment, but the production resources of Bitcoin are very large, and the mining farm requires a lot of computing power and electricity to operate. Consuming energy is harmful to the environment, but the creation of fiat currency also pollutes the environment, but I believe that with the passage of time, although Bitcoin is not environmentally friendly now, I think there will be better in the future Way.

[stompix]

A different, more intriguing approach to the question, taking the analogy with gold to a different point.
Very interesting.

As with gold, Bitcoin users are happy to pay for the “costs” of the monetary system they opt into

This, one line that says it all!

The consumption of the bitcoin network is a direct result of its value, and it's the same in every single sector of the economy. Gold mining emissions will drop to 1% of what they are if gold drops to 17/ounce, same with oil when oil went down wells closed, emissions decreased if silver would quadruple in times silver mining will consume more energy than ever, every single thing has a price and the demand for it will dictate how much you can spend on it. Simple as this!

The problem is not how much energy is spent and how much of it is clean or not, poeple are giving this process reasons of existence, just like poeple want to play games or they want to pay 100$ a day to light their houses on Christmas, comparing it makes no sense, it's a choice of a few or the choice of many. If only 10 poeple would celebrate Christmas the energy spent would be under an Mwh, if nobody would be using Bitcoin the energy spent would be as much as a laptop or two running. That's the only parallel you need to draw between two human activities, nothing else.

Comparisons of things that don't have the same purpose and achieve the same goal are meaningless, gaming and Christmas lights, gold mining and agriculture, public transport, and hospitals, btw hospitals in the US consumed 200TWh, how can we compare this consumption to anything else? Or rather than how does, anyone dare to compare it? The thing is people should stop comparing things, I'm tired of all the things like you see the banking sector consumers more energy....it was funny when bitcoin was at 5twh/year, started to be less funny at 50twh, at 120twh is becoming also ridiculous, what are we going to do if Bitmain fixes its chip supply problem and the price per BTC hits 300k?

We will need to change the rhetoric to finally point out what matters, what Bitcoin achieves and the trust in it that gives its value, nothing else!

This project was developed a very long time ago, but they did not start implementation, since the catch is that it needs a colossal infrastructure (as opposed to mining farms, which can be installed on site).

Mining is a 24/7 business, that's why there are no miners mining only on solar while not being connected to the grid for night time.
The same will be with this plant, nobody will want to mine it there even if you give them 2 cents energy, without another power source to keep them running nonstop, and with the batteries cost blowing the price higher than traditional power it won't attract anybody.

[KingsDen]

The issue of Bitcoin environmental disaster became a thing of interest to me when I stumbled on Elon Musk reason of halting purchases of Tesla vehicles with Bitcoin.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/why-elon-musk-is-worried-about-bitcoin-environmental-impact.html
Now, seeing OP attracted me to join the discussion and/or argument.

Answering why Bitcoin energy consumption is emphasised than similar energy consumers;

1. Someone you love could actually slap you and "I'm sorry dear" will solve the problem. However, someone you hate, whom you believe is a threat to your existence, if he mistakenly slaps you, it will surely end in human right office or a police station. What this means is that bitcoin is a threat to some authorities.  Even if her sins are of same magnitude with others, she would be singled out.

2.  Uncertainty of evolution: If we can honestly analyse the rate of bitcoin adoption in respect to the rate of energy consumption, we can clearly see that we may be at risk if bitcoin is massively adopted, maintaining same energy consumption rate. It's worthy to be a thing of concern.

3. Who are interested in bitcoin?: We only have two voices in the world; the government and the people. When you talk about Netflix and others, the peoples voice is so loud in favour of Netflix because of the pleasure derived from them. The government voice is also in favour due to taxes accruing from Netflix.
Now Bitcoin; the peoples voice is faint (maybe the developers, miners and investors) because the people don't know her much and in the other hand, the government voice is against it. So, her sins will always be magnified and grossly hyperbolized.

In view of the above,  government is looking for reason(s) to instigate the people against Bitcion.

Therefore; Bitcoin miners especially the Lords with high computing powers should consider migrating to renewable sources of energy. If there are companies already practicing upto 70% renewability, they should be encouraged.

Likewise, if the migration from PoW to PoS will not cause security harm, there should be considerations for this(unless there isn't provisions for this in the protocols)because I read that the later is more environmental friendly.

Thanks all.

[icopress]

I really don't like this project: it is heavily impacting on the local ecosystem. [...]  Your project, on the other hand, does not depend on miners to be profitable: it could sell the electricity to a city, or a farm to be profitable, and nothing would change.

Mining is a 24/7 business, [..] The same will be with this plant, nobody will want to mine it there even if you give them 2 cents energy, without another power source to keep them running nonstop, and with the batteries cost blowing the price higher than traditional power it won't attract anybody.

To dispel the myth about ecosystem change, just look at the diagram that I published above ... What I mean is that this type of power plant is absolutely safe, since the construction of the dam is necessary for the installation of turbines, and not for the retention of water masses (in the presence of a dam, the water level in the water area will change in the same way as if it changed during the ebb and flow without the dam). The daily carrying capacity of the dam is 500 cubic kilometers, the same amount of water as the Amazon River carries in 25 days, ("now imagine the 25-day energy of the Amazon compressed into 24 hours").

+ I want to add that I indicated that this is a utopian project, since it is necessary to invest tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure. Due to the fact that within a radius of several hundred kilometers there are no cities or power grids through which this electricity could be transmitted. It is for this reason that I said that it is advisable to install a mining giga-farm locally. And by the way, power generation happens 24 hours a day ... which is perfect for mining.

But the main thing that you guys missed is that I am not suggesting that miners buy this clean electricity ... the idea is to invest in the construction of this project by adding mining power to it (thereby ensuring energy-efficient mining of Bitcoins for 50 or 100 years). I will repeat the above .... in case of obsolescence of mining equipment or in case of excess electricity, ("after all, the power of this power plant is equivalent to the power of 25 nuclear power plants") can switch to the production of liquid hydrogen. This approach will make this object a means of pressure on Elon Musk's space program.

Elon Musk would have turned over in his coffin if he was dead and if the key players in the Bitcoin industry would sell him fuel for Bitcoins.

[MKings]

The energy composition used by Bitcoin mining computers is different. For example, each unit of hydropower energy has a much smaller impact on the environment than the same unit of coal energy.
Laskey offered a compelling reason why the Bitcoin system is environmentally friendly rather than harmful (contrary to popular belief), and he also raised concerns about Bitcoin's environmentally friendly future. If you want to understand why the energy consumption of the Bitcoin system is reasonable, and why the Bitcoin system saves more energy than its alternatives,
you can watchhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzT8KlSwlO4&t=25s

[Xinarae*]

Mining is paid for their security services the creation of new bitcoins and the processing of transactions mining provides services like any business. As long as there is a market for bitcoin some people will be willing to pay for electricity in bitcoin mines Whether mining or power is wasted is just a matter of vision for those who understand the benefits of bitcoin it is very clear why the power value of using bitcoins is good. The cryptocurrency industry is committed to contributing to the urgent environmental fight the crypto community bitcoin makes life easier and better for many people.

[stompix]

+ I want to add that I indicated that this is a utopian project, since it is necessary to invest tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure. Due to the fact that within a radius of several hundred kilometers there are no cities or power grids through which this electricity could be transmitted. It is for this reason that I said that it is advisable to install a mining giga-farm locally. And by the way, power generation happens 24 hours a day ... which is perfect for mining.

No, it doesn't, and the numbers themselves should have told you so if with 100GW powerplant you're expecting only 200Thw instead of the 870 Thw such a capacity would produce by running 24/7 it means you have a 22% capacity factor which is in line with the only other major tidal projects like Shia and Racen which both are under 28%.

Besides, it's normal, where do you think all that water that is pushed by the tides goes? It must come back at one point and there are phases of the build-up in both directions, nowhere on this planet, there is a continuous tide with the same amplitude.

[fillippone]

Bitcoin Magazine again on Bitcoin mining and solar energy:

IS SOLAR POWER A GOOD FIT FOR BITCOIN MINING?

Solar power in particular seems like the cutting edge for renewable Bitcoin mining. Bitcoin industry stalwarts Blockstream and Square are constructing a multi-million-dollar solar-powered mining facility, for instance.

But it’s hard to know what percentage of the Bitcoin network’s overall hash rate is generated by solar power, though anecdotal evidence from solar developer Blake King of RES Holdings indicates that there are new solar projects “everywhere” in the U.S.

There is an interesting section about the fact that Solar Power could even be considered a green source, as many solar power panels are manufactered in China, ina very polluting way.

[Veter2000]

This sterile corporate speak is of course a euphemism for the following: “I see no value in Bitcoin and hence consider all costs associated with its production and maintenance wasteful.”

Sometimes everything essential fits into one sentence, and I believe the author has captured the very essence of the whole anti-Bitcoin agenda. When it comes to Bitcoin, I think there are several categories of people :

• Those who fully understand what Bitcoin is and how it works, and what the benefits of a decentralized cryptocurrency are - and I believe there are very few such people, in a percentage of less than 10% including those who are for and those who are against.
• Those who understand to some extent, but still are very cautious and very susceptible to media mainstream propaganda that continues to successfully promote the agenda "Bitcoin is bad for the environment."
• In the end, those who are very smart and intelligent, perfectly understand what Bitcoin is, are aware that the impact of crypto mining is actually negligible - but they represent a global financial elite that defends the system they have built for centuries in every possible way.

If there's one thing we could learn from all this, it's that those who control the mainstream media shape public opinion - especially things that the average person has a hard time understanding, and Bitcoin is in the category of such things.

   If we consider any waste of energy in this way, then we can go very far. For absolutely any waste of energy, there is a person or a group of people who will consider, for example, watching TV programs to be meaningless and useless. If the energy is paid for, then who cares what it is used for? Isn't this a personal matter for everyone? It's just that environmental friendliness is just another excuse for the authorities to curb the spread of the adoption of bitcoin as a value transfer system independent of them.

[icopress]

+ I want to add that I indicated that this is a utopian project, since it is necessary to invest tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure. Due to the fact that within a radius of several hundred kilometers there are no cities or power grids through which this electricity could be transmitted. It is for this reason that I said that it is advisable to install a mining giga-farm locally. And by the way, power generation happens 24 hours a day ... which is perfect for mining.

No, it doesn't, and the numbers themselves should have told you so if with 100GW powerplant you're expecting only 200Thw instead of the 870 Thw such a capacity would produce by running 24/7 it means you have a 22% capacity factor which is in line with the only other major tidal projects like Shia and Racen which both are under 28%.

Besides, it's normal, where do you think all that water that is pushed by the tides goes? It must come back at one point and there are phases of the build-up in both directions, nowhere on this planet, there is a continuous tide with the same amplitude.

I suppose my knowledge in this matter is not very different from yours, so I will allow myself to argue with you ... As I already said, Penzhinskaya Lip is the only place on our planet where gravitational forces change the water level twice a day with the strongest amplitude (although, depending on the orbit of the Moon, there will still be energy loss not exceeding 25%, but this is compensated by a very high current speed). And precisely due to the fact that in this bay, there is a very large difference between the highest and lowest point, ebb and flow currents can be used for the constant generation of electricity, the question is only reduced to the presence of two alternately operating systems _[1].

When the water level in the tank is higher than the sea level, the water flows through the outlet sluice; the inlet sluice is closed at this time. When the water level in the tank is lower than the sea level, the water flows through the inlet sluice; the outlet sluice is closed at this time. Thus, the reservoir and the sea create "tidal waves" of equal strength, with a time lag. This is the most efficient and economically viable way to continuously generate energy with the help of a tidal hydroelectric power station and it is based on the operation of two or more alternately operating systems with independent reservoirs.

[stompix]

And precisely due to the fact that in this bay, there is a very large difference between the highest and lowest point, ebb and flow currents can be used for the constant generation of electricity, the question is only reduced to the presence of two alternately operating systems

Isn't this difference thingy making you wonder anything?
There is a huge difference between producing power continuously and producing power continuously at maximum capacity, it will produce 1% when the tide is changing and 100% in full movement, this is no longer about knowledge on the subject is pure physics, you can't have a mass of water flowing with the same speed constantly as you need a zero moment, that's how all tides work and this is why all tidal powerplants have the same generation curve.

Sihwa 24.8%, Rance 28%.

Besides, why would a 100GW powerplant produce only 200Thw if it would run at full capacity nonstop? The answer is simple, because it doesn't.

[Veter2000]

bitcoin's problem about energy only affects miners, miners on this side are like victims of environmental issues where energy use is large, but actually it doesn't affect because the number of miners in this world is very small. whereas crypto investors, crypto holders, crypto traders don't even have any effect on the environment. this is purely a conspiracy to raise the issue of bitcoin and make bitcoin have a bad image in the world

  I support your opinion that the "non-environmentally friendly" bitcoin mining is nothing more than another excuse for trying to worsen the image of bitcoin as a decentralized asset beyond the control of the authorities and regulators.