Bitcoin and CO2 emissions (Should we care?)

[seoincorporation]

CO2 emissions is the new speech against bitcoin, and is becoming a huge trend since Mr. Musk says he will accept bitcoin payments on tesla when 50% of the miners become green. And it's really fun how bitcoin is becoming the bad guy because of the enormous contamination. and I want to ask you, is it a bitcoin fault?

The city with the biggest energy consumption is Las Vegas, and did you know where that energy comes from? it comes from carbon burning, but bitcoin is the bad guy.

We don't feed the miners with carbon or fuel, we feed them with electricity and we give zero fuck about the source of that energy because it's a service that our governments provide. If it's green energy or not that's out of our hands. So, people need to stop blaming bitcoin for the CO2 emissions, the governments will always choose the cheapest way to produce energy, so, those emissions aren't from bitcoin they are from the providers. If people want to blame someone they should find the right focus.

Elon Musk should be worried about the contamination generated by batteries and not about CO2 emissions, but that's a topic that he never talks about. So, this is just a nonsense drama.

[Nhazwrath]

No.


why?

C02 was successfully framed as the bad guy for global warming.  wait ..no its called climate change now. (your assigned media opinion) And Elon should fucking know this and he probably does therefore hes repeating media bullshit points.

The reason for the No.   C02 isnt the primary greenhouse gas.   its Not even close.  H20 is the primary greenhouse gas.  it accounts for aprox 60-85% of all greenhouse gases.   c02 is under 1% also if you have equal values of CO2 and H2O, h20 is still quite a bit stronger then c02.

[pakhitheboss]

Apparently the crack head skipped the battery pollution which is 74 percent more than a conventional car and also the space rocket emission which not only destroys the ozone  layer but contributes a good amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. He should first looks into his companies rather blaming Bitcoin and the miners.

The best solution is to ignore him whenever he tweets about Bitcoin. These influencers are cancer to the community.

[TangentC]

Ethereum Devs care, which is why they started a roadmap to scrap Proof of waste and move to Proof of Stake.

No Bitcoiners don't have to care,
Just like Bitcoiners don't have to care, that bitcoin raise the electric rates and causes increased fossil fuel usage or promotes excess coal that makes it harder for some to breathe.

But will Bitcoiners care when all of the world governments ban all bitcoin mining and your bitcoin investment turns to crap,
and they use the CO2 emissions as the reason?

Just like I don't have to care if the price of bitcoin collapses because bitcoiners did not care about others.  

[slaman29]

We always should care, I do agree. But I actually don't think countries where economy is needed more than the developed nations should pay as much or at least they should be allowed to use the coal and whatever they need to develop. The West can afford to say a lot of nonsense because they did it first and don't need to anymore. But maybe that's politics. Bitcoin can and should be greener, why not?

[davis196]

The city with the biggest energy consumption is Las Vegas, and did you know where that energy comes from? it comes from carbon burning, but bitcoin is the bad guy.

Don't you know that the casinos in Las Vegas are more important than BTC miners.
Gambling is more beneficial for the society than cryptocurrency mining.
I agree with your theory.Actually I keep repeating the same theory over and over again.
We shouldn't put the blame on crypto miners for using electricity,that is produced by coal burning power plants.Nobody blames Las Vegas casinos for consuming "dirty energy" that's being produced by burning coal.
All the "crypto mining energy consumption" BS is just pure propaganda.

[Jating]

Totally agree with your point of view, but the thing is Elon Musk has portrayed bitcoin mining as very bad to the environment and many people bought on that argument.

But even way back in 2017, it has been debunked already and now that bitcoin is again on the limelight, this argument surface again, but this time there was a face to it, Elon Musk. I guess he didn't understand how everything works, or just have his own narrative behind attacking bitcoin using this angle.

[dkbit98]

Dude please it's enough with this CO2 bad propaganda, this is natural gas we (and all animals) exhale all the time and same gas plants need to live and grow.
This stupid idea that mainstream media and researchers paid by big corporations are pushing so hard is ridiculous, and connecting that with Bitcoin is even worse.
If we compare Bitcoin ''dangerous'' CO2 emission with gold, finance sector or with military-industrial complex we can see how insignificant Bitcoin is in this story.
Again, if you can convince bunch of people that cheap face masks protect them from some boogeyman virus then you can also convince them that CO2 is bad, that Bitcoin is bad, and that to much people on planet are also bad...
Pay mainstream media to report about this 24/7 and it looks like something is real even if it's not, and solution would be to stop watching tv, but it's not so easy to give up digital drug addiction

Interesting bitcoinmagazine reading material regarding this subject to put things into perspective:


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-vs-world-military-emissions

[zanezane]

Yes we should care about the emissions but the problem is that the people in power don't care about it because the leading reasons for carbon emissions are lobbying these people to stay in business.

[so98nn]

Ideally there is no need to have war over this topic in the media, social platforms or forums because if we start comparing the list then we will know how every stuff affects the carbon emission and also affects the ozone layer and thereof leading to the green house effect.

I mean since the Industrial Revolution happened there is huge spike in use of transportation whether it is ground or air or ocean every engine is responsible for the CO2 emissions. Well nobody said anything about it?

If we start then we may need to shut down the F1 racing for that matter, or may be stop cutting down the trees for making house, furnitures and what not?

Come on, this is taught in the schools man.

And suddenly they call it after effect of Bitcoin Mining. What pity mercy on the earth. 

[ranochigo]

CO2 emissions is the new speech against bitcoin, and is becoming a huge trend since Mr. Musk says he will accept bitcoin payments on tesla when 50% of the miners become green. And it's really fun how bitcoin is becoming the bad guy because of the enormous contamination. and I want to ask you, is it a bitcoin fault?

No.

The city with the biggest energy consumption is Las Vegas, and did you know where that energy comes from? it comes from carbon burning, but bitcoin is the bad guy.

We don't feed the miners with carbon or fuel, we feed them with electricity and we give zero fuck about the source of that energy because it's a service that our governments provide. If it's green energy or not that's out of our hands. So, people need to stop blaming bitcoin for the CO2 emissions, the governments will always choose the cheapest way to produce energy, so, those emissions aren't from bitcoin they are from the providers. If people want to blame someone they should find the right focus.

Elon Musk should be worried about the contamination generated by batteries and not about CO2 emissions, but that's a topic that he never talks about. So, this is just a nonsense drama.

Consider this: How much utility is gained by expending the energy on Bitcoin mining (and thereby the security of Bitcoin) as compared to its alternatives? How much ewaste is produced as a byproduct of Bitcoin mining? These are still fairly real concerns. Deflecting criticisms by directing them at something else isn't a solution, neither is shifting to an alternate algorithm. Your only way is to prove that the environmental impacts is worth it for the benefits that Bitcoin provide.

[Leviathan.007]

CO2 producing by the governments fiat money to print and transfer the money is much more than the CO2 producing by bitcoin and bitcoin miners. Specially, if the miners start to use the green power sources such has sun solar system. Bitcoin can help the nature by decreasing the usage of fossil fuels. According to many reseachs even right now when the miners are using fossil fuels instead of sun solar systems, the fossil fuels that produce the CO2 are using much less than the fossil fuels used for the traditional fiat money payment system. Bringing this case up by Elon mask had no goal but playing with the price. 

[stompix]

The city with the biggest energy consumption is Las Vegas, and did you know where that energy comes from? it comes from carbon burning, but bitcoin is the bad guy.

Are you sure about that, yeah it has a lot of hotels and casinos and a lot of lights but still the town itself is small and there are just 3 million tourists a month, and around 2 million population in the entire metro area, NY has itself 8 million and gets twice as many tourists?

Consider this: How much utility is gained by expending the energy on Bitcoin mining (and thereby the security of Bitcoin) as compared to its alternatives? How much ewaste is produced as a byproduct of Bitcoin mining? These are still fairly real concerns. Deflecting criticisms by directing them at something else isn't a solution, neither is shifting to an alternate algorithm. Your only way is to prove that the environmental impacts is worth it for the benefits that Bitcoin provide.

That's the usual way a normal person would deal with it.
But seems like the prospect of bitcoin losing value because of this has turned a lot of users into a mob that brings out only stupid comparisons, just for the sake of doing so, culminating in some saying that bitcoin mining is good because it consumes excess energy! No shit sherlock!
And dare you to try to bring logic to this mob, you'll be lynched. The same stupid propaganda, the banks that serve 3 billion customers a day and make 1 million more transactions in the same time are burning more energy! Yeah, so? A Walmart hyper store burns more energy than a 7 eleven, does that mean anything?

Rather than focusing on trying to make all the coal green the focus should be on exactly the same utility that bitcoin provides.

Does somebody care how much energy is used by people playing games? Nobody gave a fuck and nobody cares what that energy comes from, it's an economic process, people pay for what they want. Does anyone think their favorite eco salad is planted with electric solar-powered tractors and is transported with the same type of vehicles to the chain stores? No, and again people don't give a damn!

Yes, bitcoin does consume a lot of energy compared to the number of transactions it can process currently, but at the same time, it can do something that no bank is able to do, allow you to be your own bank, and safe from people that would be able to take over it by just printing money, I see TangentC is here so I assume he is right on track with his PoS propaganda.

[kryptqnick]

I think we should case about the ecology and fighting climate change because the scientific consensus on this topic is crystal clear: climate is changing because of human activities faster than ever before. So being conscious about the energy and resources in general that we are using is important. However, you're right that many things are actually the responsibility of governments and big corporations, and they are out of our direct control. Moreover, even if everyone stopped mining Bitcoin at once, it wouldn't even make a significant impact on climate change because it's only a small part out of many that contribute to this global problem. So focusing on Bitcoin is unfair.

[Carlton Banks]

No.


Rich industrialists (with the help of some fellow Malthusian scientists) dreamt up the climate change concept in the 1970s; the same rich industrialists that are responsible for all the real environmental damage


Anthropogenic climate change is a long con, perpetrated by depraved, lying eugenicists. Quite a clever con, to their credit. Bitcoin hilariously cuts through the con, by incentivizing energy use against the root of the most corrupt system of all, the monetary system.


As long as Bitcoin remains a low resource network that can handle disruptions, it cannot be stopped. Hence, someone will always find some power and some miners to keep it moving.

[Nhazwrath]

I think we should case about the ecology and fighting climate change because the scientific consensus on this topic is crystal clear: climate is changing because of human activities faster than ever before. So being conscious about the energy and resources in general that we are using is important. However, you're right that many things are actually the responsibility of governments and big corporations, and they are out of our direct control. Moreover, even if everyone stopped mining Bitcoin at once, it wouldn't even make a significant impact on climate change because it's only a small part out of many that contribute to this global problem. So focusing on Bitcoin is unfair.

Any climatologist that wants to continue to get money must toe the line since the vast majority function off gov grants.  That's the narrative that won.  Reframed global warming to climate change cemented this.  How can you argue against wording like climate change? Then link it back to the framed bogeyman? C02

Every Single climate scare mongering for the last 50 years hasn't come true.  Not once. Not a single one, zero.  C02 levels are higher then all the world ending predictions.  the worlds still here.  

This is the EXact same thing as how CRT is taking hold.  Schools for the most part function off government money Not going to teach CRT? expect gaslighting loss of job social shunning.  Since there is much push back on CRT like global warming was.  Expect a reframing Soon.

Reality isnt important for these things Only the Narrative.

elite(<<<this is the wrong word) using their Media tools are attempting to control bitcoin like those above with Narratives  which one will stick?  

[tiCeR]

Of course we should care. As much as our previous generations cared about CO2 emissions of their cars and in general of their overall behavior (sarcastic). They needed decades and science to find out that it's bad for our planet to produce such a high carbon footprint. We are much more sensitive now and that is great. We put our eyes on Bitcoin and we should pay attention and invest resources to make it a viable payment ecosystem alternative from an ecological perspective. I am sure we will succeed, but as it is with everything, transitions require time and smart decisions. We'll get there in the end. We aren't shutting down the world today because we could lose it in 20 years if we keep living like today. Bitcoin must improve, and we as a community that is increasing on a daily basis will take care of that.

[Cvetik56]

We should care but it seems like everyone is blamig BTC for CO2 emissions too much and forgetting about other stuff that does a lot more damage to environment. Crypto should be all green at some point in my opinion.

[yhiaali3]

I completely agree with you, Bitcoin is not the reason for the pollution of the planet, the age of pollution is about 200 years since the machines were discovered and operated on coal, and after that the discovery of oil and its use to operate machines, factories and cars all this huge amount of pollution and they blame Bitcoin that did not exist It has only been around ten years and does not constitute any value in front of the pollution caused by the smoke of factories and cars.
Elon Musk should stop this nonsense and go towards practical solutions to preserve the environment if he really wants to, he is the richest man in the world and can provide clean energy for Bitcoin mining but!!!!

[TangentC]

I see TangentC is here so I assume he is right on track with his PoS propaganda.

Since you invoked my name, here is my latest post.
Do you also believe Power Grid operators are propaganda?

Genuine question, wouldn’t large mining farms avoid regions where electricity is in high demand, and therefore have higher electricity rates, making it unprofitable for mining? Plus electricity generated is only “wasted” if there’s a surplus and the surplus isn’t used.

Excess Energy is never wasted, that is a myth.
Texas energy rate prices are lower than average, which is why miners are flocking there.

Most Power Grids are interconnected, they have to maintain a % of power to keep their grid stable,
when their usage is lower, they sell the so called excess energy to the other grids. (Their is No wasted energy.)
So their is no massive amount of excess energy in the grid system.

But in regions with low demand for electricity, don’t the power stations regulate the output themselves, which could lower profit? Wouldn’t industrial POW miners be welcome consumers for those power stations because it makes them generate the output to their capacity? I don’t know why some people believe this is bad. It’s simply commerce.

Actually in the US,  power plants and power generators hand over control of their output to Power Grid Operators.
They do this to avoid a monopoly.
https://peguru.com/2018/09/who-controls-the-power-grid-in-usa/

https://www.anthropoceneinstitute.com/science/grid/

Grid operators constantly monitor and manage the demand, supply, reserve margins, and power mix to ensure that you have immediate access to power in your home or business. What is the reserve margin? It is a specified backup generation capacity that can compensate for potential forecasting errors, unexpected power plant shutdowns or weather events

The grid operator uses a three-phase planning process to ensure that power plants produce the right amount of electricity to meet electric demand at any given time. Electricity supply must balance demand at all times in order to avoid a blackout or other cascading problem. The production of electricity is adjusted in 15 minute intervals to account for demand changes throughout the day. For this reason, there are three main types of power plants: baseload, load-following, and peakers.

Baseload power plants meet the minimal power needed by the grid and are designed to be on most of the time. Their capacity factor, or percent of time operational, is above 80%. They are only shut down or curtailed when performing maintenance or repair. Baseload power is the cheapest type of generation and usually supplied by coal fired and nuclear power plants because they can provide large amounts of power (up to 1.6 GW).

Load-following plants, also known as intermediate load plants, are typically combined-cycled gas fired power plants, which have a high thermal efficiency of up to 58%.  They have a gas turbine and a waste heat recovery system to capture the gas turbine’s exhaust to drive a steam turbine that produces additional electricity. Generation from load-following plants can be ramped up and down as needed. Their capacity factor is usually less than 30% of the time. But they are more complex to maintain and more expensive to operate/

The power plant of “last resort” are peaker plants. They are turned on for even shorter periods of time to meet extremely high high demands, for example, when air conditioning is used during hot days. Due to their low capacity factor, which could be as low as a few hours for the entire year, they the most expensive type of generation.

How is power bought and sold in the US?

Electricity is bought and re-sold on the wholesale power market before finally reaching the final consumer.  With the exception of Texas, this market is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) due to the interstate nature of the grid.

The wholesale market is open to utility owned suppliers and marketers, non-utility independent power producers (IPPs), and excess generation from traditional vertically-operated utilities. Furthermore, participants in the wholesale market do not necessary have own generation capacity or serve the end-user. Much like other commodity markets, individual traders (power marketers) buy electricity on the market to re-sell it.

Once the electricity is procured from the wholesale market, it is sold to the final consumer through the retail market. In states where full retail competition exists, customers may choose from either their incumbent utility supplier or from an array of new competitive suppliers

How do grid operators work together?
Within the regional wholesale markets, grid operators organize under a regional transmission organization (RTO) or independent system operator (ISO). These entities serve as a third-party independent operator of the transmission system to control, monitor, and coordinate the operations of a grid.

About 60% of the U.S. electric power supply is managed by RTOs. Ten Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) operate bulk electric power systems across much of North America.

These operators ensure that no preference is given in the dispatch of a utility-owned generator over a competitive generator. Grid operators must be certified under the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

Since PoW miners require 24x7 power, they draw down a large % of the Baseload power plants ,
which in turn means more Intermediate Load plants, are running longer,
and that when weather extremes happen, the “last resort” are peaker plants which if unable to meet the increased demand,
that is when the power grid operators start rolling blackouts to avoid the whole grid collapsing and transformers burning out.

Bitcoin Miners draw such large amounts of power in small regions , they totally remove a large % of the energy generated by the Baseload power plants.

If the Number of Bitcoin Mining devices were regulated to limit their number per power grid, then their power drain could be managed better by the power grid operators thus avoiding the rolling blackouts that have to happen to protect the grid.
* Regulating the number of ASICS per grid would have huge impact on Miners Profits as further separates locations increases their costs. Which is one reason Ethereum dev decided to avoid the potential coming government regulations by switching to PoS.*

A lot of people in the bitcoin community want to cry fud and ignore the power drain of PoW,
It is not fud, when the Power Grid operators start rolling blackouts, which has already happen in China and Iran,
which is why they started banning mining.
Power Grid operators only concern is protecting the Power grids, they don't care about bitcoins , altcoins or any of our opinions on algorithms, so the pretense that they are involved in fud is totally baseless, all they care about is a functioning power grid.

It is like this, Bitcoiners don't have to switch to PoS,
but they will have to do something to combat the energy drain they are placing on the power grids,
before the Governments step in and make the decision for them.
Which in China , they decided it was easier to ban bitcoin PoW mining than regulate it.