How to debunk the Bitcoin Energy Consumption drama

[acquafredda]

On May 31, 1999, as the dot-com economy was beginning to take off, a Forbes article was published that claimed that it was “reasonable to project that half of the electric grid will be powering the digital-Internet economy within the next decade.” The piece accused the internet—and, specifically, hardware companies—of “burning up an awful lot of fossil fuels” and setting the world on a dangerous trajectory of energy usage.
  


When the California energy crisis hit in 2000, resulting in a nationwide conversation about energy usage, this narrative entered the mainstream. Dozens of other high-profile publications cited the Mills report, claiming that the internet was on track to gobble up the national energy supply. Internal reports by JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank also cited these figures “with little or no indication that there was even a debate about them.” For such a provocative claim, there was a shocking degree of consensus.

The problem? The projections were wrong. Mills’s calculations were fraught with errors, resulting in a figure for internet power usage that, according to subsequent estimates, was at least a factor of eight too high. The data today, two decades after the Forbes article, clearly illustrates that these doom-and-gloom projections were way off-base. Even the most aggressive projections today show the internet only consuming 20% of electricity by 2025, and many tech giants are fully transitioning to renewable energy.

Read everything at the following link and please share it everywhere. If you are on Twitter, tag Elon as he needs to get bombarded.
https://www.veradiverdict.com/p/bitcoin-energy-consumption

[NeuroticFish]

If you are on Twitter, tag Elon as he needs to get bombarded.

We know that Elon's narrative on Bitcoin CO2 footprint is weak, at least because Tesla knew all this before buying Bitcoin and before accepting it for car payments.

So imho the fact it's an old narrative taken back up from the dusty vaults it's not of great importance.
Plus, we already know that extrapolations are wrong:

[davis196]

Energy consumption isn't equal to environment pollution.
Bitcoin miners aren't guilty for the environmental pollution,the coal burning power plants are guilty.
What if the Bitcoin miners are buying electricity from nuclear power plants or hydroelectric power plants?Those power plants aren't polluting the environment.
All the dumb people are just "Big Energy consumption-BAD for mother nature.Low energy consumption-GOOD for mother nature" which is wrong.This is a really dumb narrative.

[DrearyUrbanite]

If you are on Twitter, tag Elon as he needs to get bombarded.

We know that Elon's narrative on Bitcoin CO2 footprint is weak, at least because Tesla knew all this before buying Bitcoin and before accepting it for car payments.

So imho the fact it's an old narrative taken back up from the dusty vaults it's not of great importance.
Plus, we already know that extrapolations are wrong:

Calculating the energy consumption for Bitcoin (apart from extrapolation) also neglects the fact that the whole banking system requires energy as well. A lot of energy if think it through from the very first step to the very last.

As for Musk addressing that issue right now is hilarious, ridiculous, call it whatever you want. Out of a sudden he feels like bashing Bitcoin for its energy consumption.

Here "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKCuDxpccYM" he explains global warming and his whole business is all about energy (Tesla + Solarcity) but he only notices Bitcoin's energy consumption after polishing Tesla's P&L with sales from Bitcoin. What a faggot!

[Banana King]

Hi guys,

Citing Reuters "Bitcoin production is estimated to generate between 22 and 22.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, or between the levels produced by Jordan and Sri Lanka, a 2019 study in scientific journal Joule found."

Divide by 18M bitcoin and you get 1277 kg/btc/year   ( the equivalent of driving 6388 km with a modern car).

I can't deny that is quite a lot !!



My point : if you're a bitcoiner you are probably rich (and in 10 years you may not have to work anymore) so you can afford to plant a few trees !
A 100 trees is enough to offset 1 bitcoin, on reforestaction.com that's 300 USD !!!   


300 dollar per bitcoin and now your bitcoin is carbon neutral, why not ?




Cheers,

[hugeblack]

I do not think that the politicians in the world have solved all their problems to pay attention to the problem of energy and environmental problems, and then does Bitcoin mining have an effect on the environment or not?
We are facing real financial crises, a problem in the health sector, the possibility of reviving the economy. Therefore, talking about fossil fuels, oil and energy will not take an effective space to formulate new laws.

I feel happy that we have moved away from the point of drug promotion and dark activities of energy and fossil fuel consumption.

[tbct_mt2]

There are many types of energy consumption on this planet and you can convince me that all of them are useful consumption.

The drama on Bitcoin energy consumption comes from Bitcoin protesters who see Bitcoin network is useless. Let them be free but I believe a few of them will change to be Bitcoin supporters.

Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
Electricity supply in 2021. The Electricity supply chart shows the renewable resources are increasing with Solar, Wind, Bioenergy, Hydro and they will be used more by society. Bitcoin mining farms will use them more.

If you compares that chart with cbeci's chart, the drama on Bitcoin energy consumption is non sense.

[Lorence.xD]

Energy consumption isn't equal to environment pollution.
Bitcoin miners aren't guilty for the environmental pollution,the coal burning power plants are guilty.
What if the Bitcoin miners are buying electricity from nuclear power plants or hydroelectric power plants?Those power plants aren't polluting the environment.
All the dumb people are just "Big Energy consumption-BAD for mother nature.Low energy consumption-GOOD for mother nature" which is wrong.This is a really dumb narrative.

That's what we should be focusing on, and a lot of people still don't get that it is the fossil fuel that does the pollution. I believe that the reason for that is that a lot of people in the energy sector aren't allowed to talk shit about these fossil fuel conglomerates because they will suffer the most so they find another sector to blame which is unfortunately the bitcoin mining sector.

[hv_]

... create real sustainable use cases, yes - complicated, but complex?

https://twitter.com/EdBsv/status/1393133036326195203

get Bitcoin back into good light


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiUkA-d4NL8

[MrcMrc]

Bitcoin mining has always been accused of energy, high energy consumption and environmental pollutions this accusation lacks merits to stand as a fact. So to me, the way to go about this is for a debate to be held and analysis/investigation to be carried out to determine the actual level of Bitcoin energy consumptions.

[AverageGlabella]

You cannot debunk it that is the big issue that we have here the only way that you could debunk it is by collecting the usage of each miner and they are not going to give up information up easily. Instead the demographics which are being cited are estimations and estimations only. I am also sure that I have read that its estimated that the electrical car companies are using just as much as those that are using gas because to generate electricity we are still relying on fossil fuels to generate it.

I do not think we can debunk it and I do not think its even worth wasting our time with. Elon and Tesla have made the decision to allow Bitcoin payments and then remove it all in the space of a couple of months without any new information being brought to light. I am not sure what to think of it as it just sounds like they planned for this and maybe Elon was looking to profit off of the swing that it has caused.

Bitcoin miners aren't guilty for the environmental pollution,the coal burning power plants are guilty.
What if the Bitcoin miners are buying electricity from nuclear power plants or hydroelectric power plants?Those power plants aren't polluting the environment.

Energy consumption does in turn equal pollution but I do like the overall narrative you are trying to push. Bitcoin miners are using the grid to power their mining rigs and therefore the power plants have the power to limit the amount of consumption the world uses but they do not. However Tesla and many other green agenda pushing companies still use fossil fuels in order to get by in life. I do not see Tesla banning fiat currencies which rely on cutting down trees and printing ink on them as a way of standing up for the environment.

Bitcoin mining has always been accused of energy, high energy consumption and environmental pollutions this accusation lacks merits to stand as a fact. So to me, the way to go about this is for a debate to be held and analysis/investigation to be carried out to determine the actual level of Bitcoin energy consumptions.

But the data is not there to analyze in the first place. Think of it the fossil fuel plants that are generating the power for these miners cannot in any way determine what their product is being used for. They can probably determine the location and where their product is being used the most but they cannot say a Bitcoin miner is using our product here and there. That is impossible. The only indicating factor would be if a household is using more than average 24/7 (since most miners are running 24/7) but then that is not a problem since that would only be slightly above the average its the mass operation facilities which would be the most detrimental to the environment but when you compare it to Tesla's own facility which has a number of different tools they rely on which would be detrimental to the environment then I do not see the reason they have pin pointed Bitcoin miners.

Tesla is not a green company they only give the impression they are. The tools they use were mined from the ground and those mining facilities use fossil fuels to mine. There are no electric mining facilities. The tools they used were welded and their very own charging facilities rely on burning fossil fuels.
 

[zanezane]

But the electricity needed for mining is really high do we really disregard that and just say that bitcoin doesn't consume a lot of energy because a computer doing complex puzzles are expending electricity and this takes a lot of time and power to do so.

[stompix]

How to debunk the Bitcoin Energy Consumption drama

How to debunk something that is real?
Is Bitcoin mining consuming energy? Yes, it does!
Can we approximate how much energy does it? Yes, pretty simple the number is there, just take the hashrate and see how much kwh are required for it based on the standard miner!
Can bitcoin energy consumption spike 3 times from what is now? Yeah, bitcoin just needs to reach ~120k before the having!

Rather than focusing on trying to minimize the obvious the community should look at the most important thing, that is stated in the article also:

It is undeniable that Bitcoin consumes a large amount of energy, which, in the short-term, will add some carbon to the atmosphere.
Energy is not “wasted,” it is used to power the most secure blockchain on Earth, allowing for second- and third-layer innovations that expand financial access for billions of people. .

Bitcoin will consume as much energy as the block reward will allow it to, if it drops to 100$ the consumption will drop 100 times too, the same amount of transactions could be processed at but at the same time it will be as secure as the shitcoin on the 40th page on coinmarketcap. If one BTC reaches 1 million before the halving and assuming there is enough mining gear in the world you will see consumption go up by 20x from those 100ThW but at the same team, it will be 20 times more secure against any attack.

Doge is not burning less energy because of god knows what magic trick, is burning less because BTC mining reward was $46,948,254.22 USD compared to $7,132,078.25 USD and that's all.
miners have only one cost cooling and electricity, and both are capped by this reward, if doge goes to 1 million dogecoin will burn also more energy than this planet could produce. Ethereum hashrate has doubled from the start of the year, and I'm pretty sure that didn't occur without the doubling of energy consumption.

Plus, we already know that extrapolations are wrong:

Actually, the extrapolation works here, if the reward double so does the miner revenue so grows the amount of energy they can pay for mining.
Double the price, double the income with a bit of ignoring ROI, and wages and maintenance double the amounts of kwh burned.

[PrivacyG]

Anything digital consumes energy, but uncontrollable things are usually noticeably more expensive.  The energy used by Bitcoin empowers an uncontrollable economy.

Elon Musk's argument is rather pathetic.  He is looking to accept an eco friendly cryptocurrency for a non eco friendly company.  Ironically, he owns a car manufacturing company and one of rockets.  Do his rockets not pollute the air?  Do his cars not pollute either upon production?  But once again, here he is with his market manipulation.  It is a money game that he is playing very well so far, and seems to be without consequences as well.

Long as we wish for a solid free currency, we will have to make a sacrifice.  As stompix said above, Bitcoin needs this in order to stay at least as strong and secure as it is today.  And for now, the sacrifice seems to be the consequences of energy consumption and pollution.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[sheenshane]

They could be compared to what is happening to cryptocurrency now, but somehow cryptocurrency is different than the PC.
Personal computers are there already and already caused damage by being produced and also the stage where people are using it.  And now, cryptocurrency is only the second one there.  But IMO, these are pointless, it’s not the Bitcoin that has a problem, it is actually the energy providers who have to step up and do something to help human nature to survive and at least recover.

I don’t think energy consumption is the main thing here really, it is the favor of the higher people with it.
I’m not really sure why Elon stated that thing in his tweet but seriously, I find it really disappoint and funny at the same time.  It’s like hypocrisy on a different level.

[slaman29]

Nobody talks about internet and app use these days consuming vast amounts of energies for... pure entertainment. Email, video, text and audio. I don't have stats but 90% of it is for pure entertainment that brings no value of anything at all.

But nobody complains, this is the Dystopia of humans being distracted by entertainment. And our dear Elon is part of that entertainment too:)

[Weawant]

I find it easy to debunk the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Drama made by Elon Musk with two simple questions.

First question will be, did Elon Musk know that miners operations are being developed and to the point that they progress to have their operations run with 75% of the energy used are renewable? If yes, then I guess the CEO is trying to test something or doing some Public Relation Stunt so on and so forth.

What about the cobalts being mined by the young Congos? Shifting and the topic and asking Elon would make him look a hypocrite. I just hope that he doesn't belong to that group of people. That would hurt my heart enough not to respect him as one of the best entrepreneurs.

Well, I just think that Elon Musk is planning to established and publish a coin that has a very least energy consumption. He's not contrast with the idea Bitcoin itself, he said in a podcast that cryptocurrency is brilliant, but I think he is trying to find a way to get in and have his own coins.

[ranochigo]

Energy consumption isn't equal to environment pollution.

In most cases it does.

Bitcoin miners aren't guilty for the environmental pollution,the coal burning power plants are guilty.
What if the Bitcoin miners are buying electricity from nuclear power plants or hydroelectric power plants?Those power plants aren't polluting the environment.
All the dumb people are just "Big Energy consumption-BAD for mother nature.Low energy consumption-GOOD for mother nature" which is wrong.This is a really dumb narrative.

Bitcoin miners provides the derived demand for electrical consumption. If the cost of energy generation for fossil fuel is low, miners will use it. It is a blanket statement to say that Bitcoin miners are not contributing or otherwise exacerbating the problem because the truth is that they do, just perhaps to a lesser extent than most. Most renewable energy still have plenty of concerns with regards to the environmental degradation arising from this.

There is a stark difference between the scenario you've described and the predicament that we're in right now. The energy consumption doesn't have to be extrapolated over a larger timeframe for it to be enough of a concern; the network already consume a lot of energy. There is really nothing wrong with that and you really cannot debunk that. Whether it is worth for us to be mining silicon, building farms, wasting electricity for 2000 transactions per 10 minutes needs to be tackled from a completely different perspective. If you have a solid argument as to why the tradeoffs is worth, then you have a point to be made. Personally, Bitcoin deals with a huge transaction volume and the nature of PoW requires some form of resource exchange which is the electricity in this case and to a certain extent the environmental impacts. The point weakens as Bitcoin grows and scales to a much larger network, if that happens.

[Ucy]

Still haven't seen the elon musk criticism yet... I won't be surprised if his company(or companies) does way worse than what he is accusing Bitcoin of, with little impact to the billions of average global citizens.
The good thing about Bitcoin is that it solves very important problems in the right way, and is benefitting many people globally. I would overlook the energy consumption issue if it's coming from renewable/clean sources, helps secure the global network and benefits much people globally . What has elon musk centralized companies done for us? I find Bitcoin and other decentralized network way more valuable and important.
It actually deserves the energy it consumes assuming it's from renewable sources . What I don't really like about its PoW is the concentration of large stationary mining farms around the world.

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin consumes something like 0.1% of global electricity, electricity is responsible for 30% of carbon emissions, so Bitcoin is responsible for 0.03% of carbon emissions from this rough estimation. IMO 0.03% isn't that high, especially when industries like meat and trasportation are responsible for so much more.