Could eco-friendly pools like Terra Pool end the energy consumption discussion?

[d5000]

Energy consumption (above all, of fossil fuel like coal) is still one of Bitcoin's major disadvantages and if nothing changes, there will be sure more price turbulences like those caused by Elon Musk's tweets last week.

But there is hope that soon the situation could change significantly in the near future.

In March, there was an interesting announcement in the mining industry: Two mining companies, DMG and Argo, are joining forces to build the first mining pool based on renewable energy, called Terra Pool.

Only companies using hash power coming from renewable energies will be admitted in Terra Pool. According to statements of Argo in late April, the pool should be operative by the end of the quarter (thus, in June). Mostly they will be using hydroelectric power, Argo just three days ago purchased data centers in Canada to operate mining equipment based on hydropower.

If this pool is successful, I can imagine a chain reaction, with several mining companies to join Terra Pool or other similar initiatives. While they may have still small price advantages using energy from old coal-based power plants, joining a "green" pool can give them advantages like a regulatory certainty, and the price advantage is smaller every month due to the constant price decrease of renewable energy generation equipment. Remember that the U.S. State of New York introduced stricter regulations for the eco-friendliness of mining companies, and similar regulations could follow in other regions.

Maybe even Chinese pools could follow the example, as there are also regulation attempts in this region. And once we achieve 100% renewables-based mining, then the whole "energy consumption" discussion will stop.

What do you think? I think someone should tweet Elon Musk about Terra Pool and similar initiatives

[ranochigo]

A step in the right direction to prove that a certain percentage of Bitcoin miners are using renewable energy but I imagine the chinese miners aren't really interested in things like this. Regulations is far more lax there, as you can imagine why.

How about the opportunity cost? Would the renewable energy have been used for uses other than mining and thereby reducing the reliance on renewable energy? I think it would be a far better viewpoint (and perhaps a counterpoint that opponents of PoW would use). Elon Musk has been pretty active on Twitter and loads of people have been convincing otherwise, to not much effect.

[odolvlobo]

Restricting your pool to miners that can prove their electricity is from renewable sources will only ensure that the pool is small. It won't prevent miners who can't prove it from joining a different pool or even making their own pool.

BTW, how many miners can control the source of their power? If you get electricity from a distributor then you can't guarantee that the power is from a renewable source.

[leea-1334]

It is not so much about the source of energy that most people like Elon are discussing,,, rather the amount of energy.

As it is pointed out by some people, even using electric cars in some countries is pointless because the source of power is from coal plants,,, so the energy is never clean in some countries.

[dkbit98]

Fact is that everything will be forced to change and use more renewable energy and not just Bitcoin, for example many European countries will totally ban gasoline and diesel cars by 2030.
In theory many coal power plants will be closed and replaced with hydro, nuclear or other power sources, and I don't think that 1% of energy used by Bitcoin is such a big deal if we look at global picture, but it looks much bigger if media and social media are talking about it all the time.

Maybe even Chinese pools could follow the example, as there are also regulation attempts in this region. And once we achieve 100% renewables-based mining, then the whole "energy consumption" discussion will stop.

We are probably not going to achieve 100% renewables-based mining any time soon, China is spending 99% of energy for all kinds of shit that is not related with Bitcoin and big part of produced energy is wasted anyway, but who cares about that right

I am not saying making more eco friendly mining pools is bad, but we should address the source of the problem and that is not Bitcoin.
Much more pollution is created in process of creating Lithium batteries that power electric cars, and that cars are again using energy from coal power plants, so it's much worse then it looks on first sight.
I think that bitcoin mining is like a living organism and it will adapt to whatever conditions and regulations are in the world, but we should be ready for even worse Bitcoin fud in future.

[TangentC]

Energy consumption (above all, of fossil fuel like coal) is still one of Bitcoin's major disadvantages and if nothing changes, there will be sure more price turbulences like those caused by Elon Musk's tweets last week.

But there is hope that soon the situation could change significantly in the near future.

In March, there was an interesting announcement in the mining industry: Two mining companies, DMG and Argo, are joining forces to build the first mining pool based on renewable energy, called Terra Pool.

Only companies using hash power coming from renewable energies will be admitted in Terra Pool. According to statements of Argo in late April, the pool should be operative by the end of the quarter (thus, in June). Mostly they will be using hydroelectric power, Argo just three days ago purchased data centers in Canada to operate mining equipment based on hydropower.

If this pool is successful, I can imagine a chain reaction, with several mining companies to join Terra Pool or other similar initiatives. While they may have still small price advantages using energy from old coal-based power plants, joining a "green" pool can give them advantages like a regulatory certainty, and the price advantage is smaller every month due to the constant price decrease of renewable energy generation equipment. Remember that the U.S. State of New York introduced stricter regulations for the eco-friendliness of mining companies, and similar regulations could follow in other regions.

Maybe even Chinese pools could follow the example, as there are also regulation attempts in this region. And once we achieve 100% renewables-based mining, then the whole "energy consumption" discussion will stop.

What do you think? I think someone should tweet Elon Musk about Terra Pool and similar initiatives

Using renewal energy only , would end the carbon footprint issue,
but it would not end the issue of driving of energy prices for everyone else on that specific power grid.
Which leaves one of the major reasons PoW mining gets banned.

Reference: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/16/17128678/plattsburgh-new-york-ban-cryptocurrency-mining

“I’ve been hearing a lot of complaints that electric bills have gone up by $100 or $200,” Read told Motherboard. “You can understand why people are upset.”

While Bitcoiners don't like PoS, so far it is the only solution that fixes all of the energy waste issues.

There was once mention of work being done on a new PoW design that used light instead of electricity,
I have heard nothing about that for years, so I guess it failed.

The only solution that seems possible with PoW, is regulations limiting who can mine , and how much electricity they are allowed to use.
Once that happen , bitcoin would be a centralized system, which I would hope even the most die hard PoW supporter can recognize PoS is a much better solution than centralized regularization and full government oversight , as Bitcoin would be no better than fiat then.

[d5000]

I imagine the chinese miners aren't really interested in things like this. Regulations is far more lax there, as you can imagine why.

I've read this is no longer the case in some regions like Inner Mongolia. I expect other regions to follow that trend. So using renewable energy is in the interest of miners in China, too, and the earlier they start, the less harsh will impact the transition on their operations.

How about the opportunity cost? Would the renewable energy have been used for uses other than mining and thereby reducing the reliance on renewable energy?

If miners specifically demand gradually more renewable energy from renewables-specialized electricity distributors, then this sector is incentived to invest in more infrastructure to produce electricity, so miners would not be "taking away" the energy from other users (at least outside of bottlenecks). It would be even better if the miners had their own power plants, as this way they could be operating outside of the regular grid and not affect it in the case of shortages (they would then temporarily regulate them down). On a small scale this kind of off-grid mining is already happening but it would be crucial that bigger mining farms adopt that model, too.

Restricting your pool to miners that can prove their electricity is from renewable sources will only ensure that the pool is small. It won't prevent miners who can't prove it from joining a different pool or even making their own pool.

Technically you're totally right, but in an increasingly "conflictive" situation with regulators (see the proposed mining ban in Inner Mongolia and the New York state regulation which demands miners to operate in an "eco-friendly" way) it can help improve their image and also predictability - once they're 100% green they wouldn't have to fear a ban anymore. A "green" pool would even reinforce their commitment as they would signal to support other miners with similar goals, and thus the transition to a "greener" Bitcoin overall. This can also attract more investors in their companies.

BTW, how many miners can control the source of their power? If you get electricity from a distributor then you can't guarantee that the power is from a renewable source.

In some countries there are specialized "green" energy providers, e.g. Lichtblick in Germany. In others, miners could even help to create a market for these kinds of distributors.

I am not saying making more eco friendly mining pools is bad, but we should address the source of the problem and that is not Bitcoin.
Much more pollution is created in process of creating Lithium batteries that power electric cars, and that cars are again using energy from coal power plants, so it's much worse then it looks on first sight.

Do you have sources that prove that the production and operation of electric cars is demanding more energy than Bitcoin? I would be really interested in comparing those both sectors, and I can't really believe your claim, because for example Norway is one of the biggest electric car markets and has almost 100% renewables-based electricity. But I may be wrong

@TangentC: See the second answer to ranochigo.

[dkbit98]

Do you have sources that prove that the production and operation of electric cars is demanding more energy than Bitcoin? I would be really interested in comparing those both sectors, and I can't really believe your claim, because for example Norway is one of the biggest electric car markets and has almost 100% renewables-based electricity. But I may be wrong

You don't have to believe my words but do your own research about that subject, internet is full of reliable information sources and research about this (I actually like electric cars btw but don't be fooled with eco promises).
Electric cars or batteries are not produced in Norway, they produce a lot of carbon, spend a lot of energy in production, and let's take an example of most hated electric car in this forum Tesla with their giga factory
in Reno, Nevada, United States and check their electricity bill.
17.5 tons of CO2 is emitted in the air by the making just ONE normal electric car battery and bigger ones are emitting more, then you need to spend more energy for charging them,
and you need to replace them and throw them in trash maybe in few years or after 100,000 miles.
You should know that those batteries are made from Lithium and please check what happened with pollution and countries that have large source of Lithium and mines, than you should also know that natural graphite needed for this batteries is also coming from China who are using coal power for that, so everything is not black and white  
One more fun fact is that 80% of Lithium batteries are coming from... China.
https://www.eartheclipse.com/environment/large-co2-emissions-batteries-electric-cars.html

[20kevin20]

Do you have sources that prove that the production and operation of electric cars is demanding more energy than Bitcoin? I would be really interested in comparing those both sectors, and I can't really believe your claim, because for example Norway is one of the biggest electric car markets and has almost 100% renewables-based electricity. But I may be wrong

It's probably not demanding more energy than BTC now, but it might soon.. Looking in-depth into the renewable-based stuff is a quite hard study to do tbh, but here are some numbers that I hopefully didn't get wrong..:

Bitcoin consumes ~110 Terawatts/year according to HBR. According to PolicyAdvice, there are around 5.6M electric cars right now (the number is probably much higher today as the article seems to take figures from 2018-2019 tho). Considering the figures Provider Power put out, the average US driver would need ~341kWhs per year to drive an EV as usual.. multiply 341kWhs by 5.6M and you get a total of 1.9 terawatts per year needed to power all EVs in the world if they all had a constant consumption of 3.3 miles/kWh.

Now let's take the predictions.. "By 2030, there will be around 4 million EVs in California alone." (taken from Policy Advice).. it means that California alone will consume ~1.36 terawatts per year through EVs in a matter of only 9 years. Now add car manufacturing electricity consumption and you have a ton of watts consumed.. the figures will also grow very fast in a short timespan. There were approximately 1.3B cars in the world and the predictions are that by 2040 under 33% of the cars in the world will be electric.. Take just 25% of 2016's approximate number of worldwide existing vehicles instead of 33% and multiply it by 341kWhs - that is 112.5 terawatts! Is that not a lot?

The renewable energy part .. it's hard to digest it, the prices we'd have to pay per kWh are (I assume) higher than regular contracts and so the transition from fossil to renewable is a hard job itself for the average human. What I'd like to know is how much Musk's SpaceX pollutes and consumes overall, because that seems like it's both intentional (when you sign an electricity contract you might not know the source of energy but Musk surely does know about rocket pollution?) and silly when you think about Musk's tweets against BTC..

I am not biased and I cannot deny facts so anyone feel free to prove me wrong. Happy to learn new stuff. But at this time, I think it's safe to say that EVs are consuming an increasingly lot amount of electricity too, and at the end of the day how many of those are charged using 100% renewable sources of energy..?

[hatshepsut93]

Green energy is projected to become cheaper than fossil fuels in the near future, and it already is in some places, so this problem will literally solve itself sooner or later. And since Bitcoin is contributing to only a tiny fraction of emissions, no action should be taken, because its impact is on the magnitude of the margin of error.

Eco-friendly pools are pointless, a pool is just a server that miners choose to connect to. They can always connect to some other pool.

[Gamerholic]

I think this is a utopia that is not destined to come true in the near future. Judge for yourself - the world, despite the fight against global warming and other populist movements, will not stop using traditional resources, including coal. The point is capitalism, which will use the cheapest and most accessible energy resource in any scenario to extract nailed and environmentalists will never be able to change this. All this is just noise about nothing. Consider how green it is to make Tesla batteries and other manufacturing delights.

[d5000]

You don't have to believe my words but do your own research about that subject, internet is full of reliable information sources and research about this (I actually like electric cars btw but don't be fooled with eco promises).

The problem is that there are two diverging "schools" which both publish lots of information: one side trying to promote electric cars, the other side trying to "debunk" the claim of the "promoters". According to my research the "promoting" side is closer to reality, as the other side often uses older data (e.g. about the energy mix used for the electricity to run the cars and produce batteries, where almost in the entire world is moving towards "more renewables"  - for example they still sometimes cite an old Swedish study, when even the study authors have updated their findings more recently and come to more optimistic conclusions).

But anyway, I thought you had information to compare Bitcoin with electric cars as you were pretty bold about your claim. I think the one making a claim should also try to prove it

... numbers ...

Thank you for the numbers. Let's assume the 1.9 TWh/year consumption for all current electric cars is real.* Production (above all, the battery) makes up about half of the lifetime CO² emissions of an electric car, so we could assume, if the energy mix is the same for production than for driving/charging, that we have to double the value to about 4 TWh/year, which is much less than even the most optimistic Bitcoin energy consumption estimation (~50 TWh/year). Of course, like you correctly remark this is the current situation and we could reach Bitcoin's energy consumption in a few years.

*I've read another estimation which concludes that one needs about 3 TWh/year per million EVs, which would mean we reach 17 TWh/year for all worldwide EVs and close to 30 TWh/year if we take production into account (and if production really makes up for half of the lifetime electricity consumption). So this estimation would come already closer to Bitcoin's consumption, but is still much lower than even the optimistic 50 TWh/year estimation.

Green energy is projected to become cheaper than fossil fuels in the near future, and it already is in some places, so this problem will literally solve itself sooner or later.  And since Bitcoin is contributing to only a tiny fraction of emissions, no action should be taken, because its impact is on the magnitude of the margin of error.

Agree with the first part. However, "actions" can help us to reach that tipping point sooner, and the whole discussion would also end sooner. The earlier we reach this point, the less it's likely that some really hard regulations (up to bans) could seriously harm Bitcoin's adoption.

Maybe the following opinion is unpopular, but it would be ideal if the Bitcoin price remained relatively low (i.e. not higher than the old ATH or at most 100K) until this tipping point is reached. I read some opinions that 100K per BTC is a price some are considering the limit when they would consider stricter regulation against BTC.

Eco-friendly pools are pointless, a pool is just a server that miners choose to connect to. They can always connect to some other pool.

Technically that's correct, but in this discussion not everything is about technology. The communication aspect (i.e.: the possibility for mining companies to be able to advertise themselves being connected to a "100% green pool") will become increasingly important, I assume, above all for negotiations with governments. And even technically, if green pools grow, they may have a significant impact on the efficiency of the operations of their members (reward variance minimization).

[dkbit98]

I thought you had information to compare Bitcoin with electric cars as you were pretty bold about your claim. I think the one making a claim should also try to prove it

I am not pro researcher or writer but use your own head and think for a minute.
According to some stats just in year 2020 global electric car sale was around 10,800,000 and they all spend electricity for charging all the time, while zero electricity is spent for gasoline cars.
Just one average electric car spends 33 kWh per 100 miles, now if you multiple that with millions and billions of cars you will get some interesting numbers.
Much more electricity is spent on production of Lithium batteries, and even simple stand-by electronics we all use at our homes are spending much more electricity than Bitcoin, and that is the fact.
Looks like you love proof so here is some data comparison that you won't hear from Bill Gates and clowns like him, always-on electric devices in America are spending 1,375 TWh/yr,
that is 12 times more compared with Bitcoin network estimated 113.89 TWh/yr.
I think every house have one or more cars in modern western world, now imagine if every car will be electric by 2030... and they all spend electricity all the time, numbers go up so easy.
Source data: https://docsend.com/view/adwmdeeyfvqwecj2

[d5000]

According to some stats just in year 2020 global electric car sale was around 10,800,000

You seem to be right about that number, although it seems not to be sales of 2020 but the complete electric car stock at the end of 2020 (see here, 2020 sales were about 3,2 million), so I will adjust the TWh consumption based on 20kevin20's figures and my own research.

- If we take 20kevin20's numbers: 4 TWh (2TWh production / 2 TWh consumption per million cars) * 10,8 we have 43,2 TWh for all worldwide electric cars.
- The other study I found, as I wrote, has higher numbers, with 6 TWh / million cars, * 10,8 =64,8 TWh.

Both numbers come already close to lower estimates of Bitcoin consumption, as the Digicoinomist Index is put in doubt by some and may overestimate power consumption. My guess is that if we're entering a bear market in BTC now, then electric cars will consume more than BTC in 2021/22, but if the bull market continues Bitcoin will consume more.

We're obviously talking about the current situation (2021, or 2020 for the lack of newer figures) and not 2030. We don't know how much TWh will Bitcoin consume in 2030, this will depend on the BTC price on that year, but it's not a very bold claim that beside of electric cars also Bitcoin will consume more electricity in that year than now. Just ...

use your own head and think for a minute

While I'm waiting for news about Terra pool, I found the following interesting article:

Moving to Green Bitcoin May be Moving To a Two-Tier Bitcoin

According to the article it may be possible that Bitcoins from "green" pools/miners could be sold for a (small) premium, as in theory it's always possible to track it back to the origin. This could give additional incentives for miners to move to green energy.

[dkbit98]

While I'm waiting for news about Terra pool, I found the following interesting article:

Moving to Green Bitcoin May be Moving To a Two-Tier Bitcoin

I don't like this idea of multi tiers, and Bitcoin mining devices are energy agnostics like any other electric devices, that means they can use electricity from whatever source, coal, hydro, nuclear or even poo if someone invents such device that transforms humans feces into energy.
People will again send and mix coins from all pools, call them green or dirty and this efforts to divide Bitcoin in tiers will be futile in the end, like it happened with Marathon opac compliant mining pool.

[SFR10]

And once we achieve 100% renewables-based mining, then the whole "energy consumption" discussion will stop.

What do you think?

That's a big if and personally ^{[and realistically]}, I can't see it happening anytime soon ^{[perhaps in the next 10 years or so (I hope I'm wrong)]}.

Moving to Green Bitcoin May be Moving To a Two-Tier Bitcoin

According to the article it may be possible that Bitcoins from "green" pools/miners could be sold for a (small) premium, as in theory it's always possible to track it back to the origin. This could give additional incentives for miners to move to green energy.

I'm sure it's going to take a lot more than that to make them switch to green energy and I doubt it'll be enough ^{[short term]} to cover the cost ^{[in some cases]}.

[verita1]

I think we should forget Elon Musk's support for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and share real news about bitcoin that will improve the market.
It was a serious mistake for Elon Musk to invest in bitcoin without being 100% sure like all the great defenders like Jack, Michael Saylor and others.
Not only rich people have invested in bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, there are also people who depend on bitcoin for their daily needs and with the broken market it is very hard to get it up soon, so I point out the unfounded decision of Elon Musk as very negative.
Jack says bitcoin as we know it is climate friendly. Let's learn more in the next article:

Jack Dorsey Says Bitcoin Can Make the World Greener. Could He Be Right?

So it seemed exactly backward what Dorsey was saying, that bitcoin was actually positive for the environment. To support his assertion of him, Dorsey had shared a new white paper from Square, his other company, which argued that "Bitcoin mining presents an opportunity to accelerate the global energy transition to renewables," and "could encourage investment in solar systems."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/05/jack-dorsey-says-bitcoin-is-climate-friendly-is-he-right.html

[hugeblack]

Mining is an economic activity, and as soon as cheap electricity is available, mining activities will preserve it, meaning that mining activities are not focused on fossil fuels or an activity that destroys the environment, such as shale oil and others.
The more governments press for cheaper alternatives related to renewable energies, the more bitcoin mining will use them.
I also note that China may begin to reduce dependence on environmentally polluting activities by the year 2030, so we will witness a green revolution.

In general, environmental issues do not worry me because as I mentioned Bitcoin mining needs electricity regardless of its source.

[d5000]

People will again send and mix coins from all pools, call them green or dirty and this efforts to divide Bitcoin in tiers will be futile in the end, like it happened with Marathon opac compliant mining pool.

This is also what should happen, as Bitcoin is meant to be fungible. The "tiers" only are relevant for some businesses who are concerned about their image. I can imagine Tesla, for example, buying their next stash of Bitcoins from "green" miners - just to show their investors and the authorities that they're serious about the eco-friendlyness thing. Later in the "life cycle" of the Bitcoins they will continue to be mixed and used as any other Bitcoin. I also don't expect a premium much higher than 1%, but this could be still relevant as an incentive for miners.

I think we should forget Elon Musk's support for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and share real news about bitcoin that will improve the market.

While I agree that people give Elon Musik disproportionate importance, I consider the eco-friendliness aspect very important, and I seriously can't understand why some Bitcoiners are so short-sighted that they don't see it as the main problem of their beloved currency. It's not about being anti-Bitcoin, it's about improving it and solve its problems. Even if the 70% renewables currently are true, 30% fossil fuel is still too much.

It's true that the solution of the problem is not simple but I'm partidary of attacking it from different sides, being image/publicity one of the easiest way to improve the incentive calculation for miners.

Jack says bitcoin as we know it is climate friendly. Let's learn more in the next article:

Dorsey had shared a new white paper from Square, his other company, which argued that "Bitcoin mining presents an opportunity to accelerate the global energy transition to renewables," and "could encourage investment in solar systems."

That's the kind of incentive mechanism I'm talking about here: Renewables is already the cheapest option in many countries. The only thing is that in some countries fossil-fuel-based electricity is still cheaper, and the "quest" is to drive these miners slowly out, or even better, give them incentives to change the electricity source.

Another cite from the article:

While DMG Blockchain’s own operations in British Columbia already rely entirely on cheap hydropower from dams, Bennett, constantly seeking to lower his energy costs, is also putting in a solar installation; he expects to begin reaping returns on that investment in a few years. “We’re pushing into renewable because it’s just logical and natural for us to go that way,” he says. “It’s natural and logical for me to put a solar plant up because that would give me the lowest-cost power.”

By the way, DMG is one of the founders of Terra Pool.

[franky1]

lets clear some fud

lets take antpool
they set up their farms in renewable energy area's
their amount of blocks they solved this month is 40% higher then february.. so it seems they are not shutting down, but expanding

the chinese crypto ban only applies to farms that are in fossil fuel power station regions
and as of 2015.. yep 6 years ago mining farms in china were already positioning themselves in renewable regions

what the ban impacts most is not the farms but the isolated home hobby miners that cant just move to prefered locations