Bitcoin’s energy use is just a rounding error compared to other industries

[bitmover]

I was recently reading a bit of the WO thread (there are always some very good discussions there), and I found this amazing post about bitcoin energy consumption:

Shame on all of you filthy Bitcoin holders. I'm done with this dirty practice. I cannot be part of this disgusting ethical money system any more!
End of!


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-energy-use-compare-industry

As explained in the bitcoin magazine article " data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries."

It is impressive how we are seeing different attacks from politicians, journalists (NYtimes), entrepreneurs (Elon Musk..) etc on bitcoin energy consumption.

This is even leading to discussions about Bitcoin consensus mechanism and decentralization. But when we look at data, bitcoin energy consumption is basically irrelevant when compared to the global energy consumption.

If world energy consumption is really a problem and humanity must really reduce it due to environmental problems and climate change, the main focus of discussions should be industries that consume tens or even hundreds of times the energy consumed by mining bitcoin.

[Wiwo]

Bitcoin energy usage can't be compared to other sectors such as mining and steel and the whole global energy calculation is an error but the anti Bitcoin crusaders are concerned about a small pinch in the big screen, Bitcoin energy consumption is not among the top 10 highest energy-consuming sectors in global energy rating, but Bitcoin energy and its effect on the environment have been the topic on many discussions.

[milewilda]

Bitcoin energy usage can't be compared to other sectors such as mining and steel and the whole global energy calculation is an error but the anti Bitcoin crusaders are concerned about a small pinch in the big screen, Bitcoin energy consumption is not among the top 10 highest energy-consuming sectors in global energy rating, but Bitcoin energy and its effect on the environment have been the topic on many discussions.

You would really expect something like this on which whenever government doesnt really like something then no matter how small issue it would be then it would become big since it would really be emphasized and to those people who are really that die hard fans or followers would easily believed on but when you do make out some research then you would really able to realize that there are more
larger industries which is involved with this issue.It is just Bitcoin had really been emphasized specially if media does make its move which it isnt
really that surprising.

[jackg]

I kinda see it as a bit of a null talking point anyway.

If governments wanted to, they could quite easily make cheap, renewable energy to power quite a few of those sectors but have chosen not to...

Crypto was more the deflection to any inaction of governments to tackle pollution.

[Upgrade00]

If world energy consumption is really a problem and humanity must really reduce it due to environmental problems and climate change, the main focus of discussions should be industries that consume tens or even hundreds of times the energy consumed by mining bitcoin.

This is all about politics and whose ox is gored. Majority of those industries with much larger energy consumption benefit the government in one way or the other, Bitcoin on the other hand is a rogue industry per se, and poses an easy target to so called activists and the likes. Bitcoin has been attacked for far more ridiculous reason over the years.

[dkbit98]

I was recently reading a bit of the WO thread (there are always some very good discussions there), and I found this amazing post about bitcoin energy consumption

There is no precise measurement for how much human beings spend on stupid things all the time, but I am sure they would be very high on that list.
Maybe we do need building sector, transportation and health care to spend a lot of energy, but do we really need military-industrial complex spending XXX times more than Bitcoin does?
All this energy talks reminds me on one of the richest man on earth, I won't name him but you can search online, he is one of the leaders of this ''climate revolution'',
but in the same time he owns multiple jet planes he uses all the time, hundreds of cars, luxury yachts, etc.
Now he is telling us we should not own a car and we should not own, use or mine Bitcoin... I mean wtf something is really wrong with this idea

[bitmover]

Now he is telling us we should not own a car and we should not own, use or mine Bitcoin... I mean wtf something is really wrong with this idea

I think he has some other intentions behind this.

For example, he is the one behind autonomous car, with full self-driving capabilities. I think his plan is that in future we should just hire the autonomous car we want. Just like an autonomous uber. This is why you shouldn't buy you: you should use his

I thjink this may happen soon:
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-to-launch-driverless-delivery-pilot-program-in-2022-2021-12

[dkbit98]

For example, he is the one behind autonomous car, with full self-driving capabilities. I think his plan is that in future we should just hire the autonomous car we want. Just like an autonomous uber. This is why you shouldn't buy you: you should use his

I was not talking about Elon Musk, but that is the point for all of them who support stupid ideas like this.
They want you to use only their products and they want full control over you and what you are doing at all times, maybe that is the reason they usually don't support Bitcoin  
If I own a car I want to have full control over it and even go off-road when I want, and if I own a currency I want to use and hold it if I want, and I don't want for it to expiry if I don't use it to purchase something.

[mk4]

And if only we had accurate information on the energy usage of entertainment devices in general such as gaming consoles and HD televisions(for Netflix and crap); which most people turn a blind eye on but then criticize Bitcoin's energy usage.

Really though, 99% of energy criticism is just ignorant people repeating what other ignorant people say on social media.

[amishmanish]

For example, he is the one behind autonomous car, with full self-driving capabilities. I think his plan is that in future we should just hire the autonomous car we want. Just like an autonomous uber. This is why you shouldn't buy you: you should use his

I was not talking about Elon Musk, but that is the point for all of them who support stupid ideas like this.
--snip--

Probably Bill Gates. Isn't he the multi billionaire telling the rest of the world that we are consuming, eating, earning too fast for things to be sustainable?

This also reminds me of the classic speech from that WEF lady doing the round on Twitter where she is like, "The good thing is that there is more and more agreement between elites which means we can together do a lot of beautiful things. The bad thing is that most of that there is more and more disagreement between the population and the elites"

Like they actually refer to themselves as "elite". I haven't done my research to know if thats like some accepted form of salutation for people who run the world and sit at places like the WEF, but the first look on such a thing is definitely reminiscent of a certain queen who wanted the people to eat cake.

[hd49728]

It is supported by the Q4 report from Bitcoin Mining Council too. Q4 Bitcoin Mining Council survey confirms sustainable power mix and technological efficiency

When people hate something and have belief that something is wrong, they will be obsessed by that perspective and almost unchanged with their distorted and biased perspective. I am sure most of attackers will skip all informative reports and just believe in what they thought, and only want to read news which support their perspective.

[The Cryptovator]

They are FUDER who accuse Bitcoin mining of energy consumption. Ignore Elon, he is a big crypto politician in the world. He pushes different coins sometimes for his own benefit. As I said earlier in a post, Bitcoin mining energy consumption is like a drop of water in a sea. But seems some FUDER is quite interested in energy consumption when it comes to Bitcoin mining. Thanks for the chart that I exactly looking for.

[franky1]

the cambridge report and other reports of bitcoin using too much fossil fuel in chaina (pre china ban) were not using actual data of what regions a asic farm was in and the power plants of that region to realise most asic farms were in renewable(hydro) area's.
the reports just to a blanket view of the entire china production where renewables were only 14% mix and the reports asserted that china mining must be dirty because of that.

even as far back as 2014 when asic farms really kicked off, the managers already organised where they would locate their farms for the best electric rates, and ensuring renewable/sustainable energy for their mining.
yep most asic farms were within that 14% renewable regions

the only real issue china actually had was not from asic farms. but from home hobbiests over-using the residential supply causing local neighbourhood brownouts by over-doing the local circuits, as well as not re-locating their home to cleaner energy regions.

EG someone wanting to hobby mine for $5-$50 a day to cover electric and get some extra coin to invest, is not going to relocate and spend hundreds of thousands to buy a new home in a neighbourhood away from friends.
but a business wanting to mine for hundreds of thousands a day(even 1 block a day is $250k) is willing to ensure their location to set-up in is sustainable and cheap electric region

[tygeade]

I was recently reading a bit of the WO thread (there are always some very good discussions there), and I found this amazing post about bitcoin energy consumption:

Shame on all of you filthy Bitcoin holders. I'm done with this dirty practice. I cannot be part of this disgusting ethical money system any more!
End of!

From the pictorial representation above, no sane person will compare the energy consumption of bitcoin and every other sector. I think it is to obvious for anyone to make such comparison but this is as a result of the hate doled out by government on Bitcoin because they feel they have no control over it. All this to help their agenda of not making crypto currency a legal tender in their countries.

[franky1]

I was recently reading a bit of the WO thread (there are always some very good discussions there), and I found this amazing post about bitcoin energy consumption:

Shame on all of you filthy Bitcoin holders. I'm done with this dirty practice. I cannot be part of this disgusting ethical money system any more!
End of!

From the pictorial representation above, no sane person will compare the energy consumption of bitcoin and every other sector. I think it is to obvious for anyone to make such comparison but this is as a result of the hate doled out by government on Bitcoin because they feel they have no control over it. All this to help their agenda of not making crypto currency a legal tender in their countries.

the post of bitcoin bunny with the image. was not bitcoin bunny hating on bitcoin. it was sarcasm/satire.

.. in the link below the image in the topic post is more charts and data. but some seem to be over exagerating still

take the so called 79TWH number
we all know by now that current gen asics are 110thash for 3.25kw
we all know that the hashrate is 195exahash
thats 1772727asics which is
5761367kw per hour
5761mw per hour
5.76gw per hour
which is over a year
50470gwh/y
50.Twh/y

well. thats based on if the hashrate was always 195exahash every hour of every day
.. well its not. hashrate is not static. and most people have had years to upgrade to current gen asics.
the cambridge reports assumptions are guesses of a large mix of inefficient asics.



the actual average for the year is 147exa.
meaning a better guess than cambridge assumed guess. (they even have an explainer page where assume and guess is mentioned many times))
the better "guess" is more like 38twh/year

and where it comes to the 56% renewable figure.. well other reports are not basing that on actual county/states renewable % vs a asic farm inside that county/state. instead it took a national view and guessed.

asic farms are predominantly in renewable area's im guessing 85%+

so when the reports show 79twh of 56% renewable. = 34twh being 'dirty'
the real and better guess is more about 38twh of 85% renewable = 5.7twh being 'dirty'

heres what my cynical mind is thinking in regards to why these reports are done:

by over inflating the power usage. and deflating the renewable %. they can make 'a mountain out of a molehill'
(make a small thing seem like a big thing)
thus the pen and paper waving politicians can then make some climate regulation to inspect asic farms and make a new report showing suddenly due to regulation. suddenly the ^(Cough)good work^(Cough) of politicians turned 79TWH of dirty into 5.7TWH of dirty
(meanwhile in reality nothing has changed to asic farms)

done so just to get some political pats on backs and also some nice juice donations from climate advocate groups

[Darker45]

This issue is actually not an issue. It has been blown way out of proportion. The only reason why this is an issue is that this involves Bitcoin. There is no other reason. I guess watching Youtube, PornHub, and stalking other people on various social media platforms contribute a lot more to global warming than Bitcoin. Various industries producing nothing but useless goods only to feed consumerism are causing more harm to the world than Bitcoin.

This has never been an environmental issue. This was simply a Bitcoin issue.

[pooya87]

It is a very interesting comparison, finally someone realized that it has to be compared globally not locally!
Even though the data used here is trying to be as global as possible but it is still not completely realistic, the real figures used in other industries is A LOT higher than this. Most of the data is manipulated by countries that report them, specially third world countries that produce the most amount of pollution, so that they don't have to spend more money in fixing the issue. For example the energy consumption in transport section is at least twice the reported value.
It also lacks one of the more energy consumption sectors: electric companies that are burning fossil fuel to this day.

[Ozero]

Governments now face the challenge of dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to combat abrupt climate change. They will now look for any opportunity to show this fight. Cryptocurrency is a very successful object for this. Therefore, no matter how much energy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that use the PoW algorithm consume, they may well be the object of this struggle, given that states practically do not need cryptocurrency.
Already, there are calls from some high officials of states to ban the mining of cryptocurrencies that have the PoW algorithm. It is very convenient for states to attack cryptocurrencies from this point of view.

[hugeblack]

It is easy to respond to your words by saying that the capacity of bitcoin is less than 1 trillion compared to the consumption that you consume versus industries such as gold mining, which consumes more energy than bitcoin, but the market capacity for gold is 10 times greater than bitcoin and so on for the rest of the sectors.
The banking sector, for example, consumes twice the energy of Bitcoin, but the money that moves in these sectors is greater than Bitcoin.

The argument for using energy is a new scenario to make people afraid of using Bitcoin. Bitcoin needs energy regardless of its source, but some activities such as mining, shale oil, transportation and others, in addition to the need for energy, it destroys the environment and this is what we must look at.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The chart doesn't even paint the whole picture, since we also know that bitcoin mining uses one of the highest proportion of green and renewable energy of any sector, far above the global average and far above the other sectors listed on that chart.

And if only we had accurate information on the energy usage of entertainment devices in general such as gaming consoles and HD televisions(for Netflix and crap); which most people turn a blind eye on but then criticize Bitcoin's energy usage.

I guess watching Youtube, PornHub, and stalking other people on various social media platforms contribute a lot more to global warming than Bitcoin.

Gaming PCs - 75 TWh per year just to run the PCs (not include console or mobile gaming). Now factor in online servers, bandwidth, game production and distribution, etc. https://computerinfobits.com/how-much-energy-do-gaming-computers-use/
Netflix - 94 TWh per year just to watch. Now factor in the production and delivery of all the devices, servers, bandwidth, etc. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines
Porn - 134 TWh per year. https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2019/09/17/bitcoin-electricity-porn/
Leaving devices on standby - 400 TWh per year. https://www.iea.org/news/around-80-billion-wasted-on-power-for-online-devices-in-2013
Youtube - as high as 600 TWh per year. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines

But sure. Bitcoin is the problem.