Bitcoin Mining, a Potential Ally in Our Fight Against Climate Change.

[blckhawk]

~

None. Energy production can never be truly carbon zero, but they an be carbon neutral. My point about it is when people are parroting it as being superior, "Bitcoin helps to combat climate change", "Bitcoin is the new green currency". They are all false. Bitcoin cannot fight climate change because it is a contributor to it. In fact, you are depriving someone of their ability to use clean energy because you are using it yourself.

Good for the environment is a misnomer. We would be much better off without any of those and it is very much a trade off and choices that we have made.

Think about it this way, say a hydro dam causes 100k in contribution to carbon emissions when it was built but in an estimated 10 year period, it will be able to produce electricity that would otherwise be worth 1m in contribution to carbon emissions if it was produced by coal, and in this example it shows that the hydro helped prevent 900k worth of carbon emissions which makes it considered a green energy since it offset it's initial carbon emissions. I agree with your stance about bitcoin not being friendly to the environment, it sounds goofy asf. What would be the right term is "Good for the environment" is a misnomer?

~

Money and politics. I have been through numerous papers and none of them explicitly mentions that Bitcoin Mining is good for the environment. Any news articles that postulates this often wraps the logic around their fallacy and blatant disregard for the numerous factors that are immediately obvious. Long distance UHV transmission has been achieved in numerous countries and instances, up to 3000KM long. The problem is the costs and time. Governments want to take the easy way out; they will build dams, solar arrays everywhere possible even if there is no use for it. They don't care about the environmental impact and Bitcoin Mining is a convenient way for them to make some GDP growth, if it is even half viable.

When it comes to politics, I'm on your side. Politicians not listening to scientists has been an all too common trope in sci-fi stories about disasters so I get that part.

I like to read where you're getting these, hope you can drop a link since I like to do some good reading regarding the topic of alternative power sources.

[1715532487]

1715532487

[ranochigo]

Think about it this way, say a hydro dam causes 100k in contribution to carbon emissions when it was built but in an estimated 10 year period, it will be able to produce electricity that would otherwise be worth 1m in contribution to carbon emissions if it was produced by coal, and in this example it shows that the hydro helped prevent 900k worth of carbon emissions which makes it considered a green energy since it offset it's initial carbon emissions. I agree with your stance about bitcoin not being friendly to the environment, it sounds goofy asf. What would be the right term is "Good for the environment" is a misnomer?

Better. I wouldn't classify any of our current renewable energy as good for the environment, just better for the environment because even nuclear energy (arguably one of the cleanest out there) produces nuclear waste which are difficult to handle. Unfortunately, the only way anything that we can do at this point in time which can be good for the environment would be to not build any of these. That is not possible, so it becomes a tradeoff at best.

Problem with the offset of carbon emission in this context would be negated if it is used for frivolous or otherwise purposes that wouldn't serve the bulk of the population, ie. social benefits are minimized.

I like to read where you're getting these, hope you can drop a link since I like to do some good reading regarding the topic of alternative power sources.

One of the initiatives for environmental conservation, as a result of the building of the dam: https://damsense.org/
Some pamphlets that I've gotten previously: https://www.wapa.gov/newsroom/Publications/Documents/Harnessing-Hydropower.pdf
News articles for HVDC projects:https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-07-04/World-s-2nd-largest-hydro-plant-completes-sectional-power-transmission-1bobg6GVOHS/index.html
There's quite a few on these, but generally it should be quite easy to find. They are usually projects which brings power from the dams to the populated regions.
Can't find the other news about building hydrodam (the oversupply pre-2000s), but here's a more recent one: https://news.mongabay.com/2022/09/in-the-mekong-basin-an-unnecessary-dam-poses-an-outsized-threat/.

Dams are still being built for the sake of it, and the benefits doesn't always outweigh the costs.

[yazher]

Bitcoin mining has gone far with the use of renewable energy source and there's less dependency on electrical power supply unlike before, there's more to see on the aspects of this same bitcoin mining being environmentally friendly, we can make this our own way of understanding the real idea on the use of bitcoin energy used for mining as an environmental friendly and cause no harm on the climate like the other source of mining do.

From now I think they already fixed that and use technologies that are not gonna be a problem for the environment because right now the eyes of the people are on them and they can be used against them if they don't want to fix their components to be environmentally friendly. Just like what happened in the past few years where groups that are hostile against bitcoins are barking and using all of that to stop any bitcoin mining. Thankfully they didn't succeed and decided to stop their claim because they seem cannot find concrete evidence about what they are talking about in bitcoin miners.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Over reliance on gas or fuel for electricity has contributed more to ozone depletion than BTC mining would dare do.  What other meaningful ways is more efficient and rewarding in itself, if not having a farm totally autonomous and has a sufficient power plan that makes off-grid living possible and for businesses too.
This would make more funds that would normally be used to sort bills, be used to expand and maintain the farm.

I have also seen a documentary of how some students who own a mining farm in a building they all joined funds to acquire, redirect the heat from the mining machines to heat the apartment pool and provide hot running water by allowing the water pass through tubes and thus by heat exchange(convection) the machines cool, the water gets hot and re-routed through out the apartment.

If delved into properly for good reasons, Bitcoin mining will help reduce emissions from combustion engines and batteries, thus help protect the environment, our lungs and save us expensive gas and petrol/fuel bills.

[blckhawk]

~

Problem with the offset of carbon emission in this context would be negated if it is used for frivolous or otherwise purposes that wouldn't serve the bulk of the population, ie. social benefits are minimized.

If you consider what the energy output is used for then that would be a different story since that's a different equation when it comes to carbon emissions. Couldn't disagree on the fact that it's negated if used for a selfish stuff but that's a societal or individualist problem I think. Maybe if we got the real numbers on how it's used and how much these renewable resources offsets in carbon emission, you might reconsider if you're not right.

Think about it this way, say a hydro dam causes 100k in contribution to carbon emissions when it was built but in an estimated 10 year period, it will be able to produce electricity that would otherwise be worth 1m in contribution to carbon emissions if it was produced by coal, and in this example it shows that the hydro helped prevent 900k worth of carbon emissions which makes it considered a green energy since it offset it's initial carbon emissions. I agree with your stance about bitcoin not being friendly to the environment, it sounds goofy asf. What would be the right term is "Good for the environment" is a misnomer?

Better. I wouldn't classify any of our current renewable energy as good for the environment, just better for the environment because even nuclear energy (arguably one of the cleanest out there) produces nuclear waste which are difficult to handle. Unfortunately, the only way anything that we can do at this point in time which can be good for the environment would be to not build any of these. That is not possible, so it becomes a tradeoff at best.

I think when it comes to good or better for the environment stuff, I think that it's a subjective thing, a dam wouldn't be a good thing for a salmon who goes upstream to breed but for humans it's good since it helps them preserve water and create artificial watersheds to foster wildlife and fisheries. Regarding nuclear waste handling, I don't think it's difficult, it's more on politics because there's a country in Europe(I forgot the name of the country) that has a very good handle on their nuclear waste by turning a small island into a nuclear waste storage, plus developing your nuclear power means cheaper electricity and fossil fuel companies don't want you to do that.

Dams are still being built for the sake of it, and the benefits doesn't always outweigh the costs.

Depends, if there's too much dam built on a river, I think that that's when the benefits outweigh the costs like what's currently happening in the Mekong River, China has 12 dams built in it while the other countries that are crossed by that river on has a total of 2 and now those at the lower end of the river are experiencing droughts.

[bitterguy28]

1) Bitcoin mining farm powered by solar energy.

The picture below is an immersion-cooled bitcoin mining farm powered by solar energy located in Norcross, Georgia.

actually this is the reality now , those who says it is abuser of energy are now denying their fact and accepting this truth of how Mining of crypto is helping the abuse of climate.

     

Nice sharing of all this mate i think there will be enlightenment to the next generation that will make bitcoin proud in the future.

[ranochigo]

If you consider what the energy output is used for then that would be a different story since that's a different equation when it comes to carbon emissions. Couldn't disagree on the fact that it's negated if used for a selfish stuff but that's a societal or individualist problem I think. Maybe if we got the real numbers on how it's used and how much these renewable resources offsets in carbon emission, you might reconsider if you're not right.

Bitcoin mining is just one of the few examples, but there are definitely more than what meets the eye. These are generally unpriced effects and it would be terribly difficult to put a number to it.

I think when it comes to good or better for the environment stuff, I think that it's a subjective thing, a dam wouldn't be a good thing for a salmon who goes upstream to breed but for humans it's good since it helps them preserve water and create artificial watersheds to foster wildlife and fisheries. Regarding nuclear waste handling, I don't think it's difficult, it's more on politics because there's a country in Europe(I forgot the name of the country) that has a very good handle on their nuclear waste by turning a small island into a nuclear waste storage, plus developing your nuclear power means cheaper electricity and fossil fuel companies don't want you to do that.

Water stagnation isn't good in all of the cases. Dam helps to prevent floods, minimize risks of wildlife lost but you also need to consider the landarea being cleared and the construction of such dams. Dams aren't just affecting aquatic animals but they have a cascading effect on both the surrounding settlements and wildlife. Nuclear waste actually decays in quite a long time due to their halflife, and they are generally unsafe to handle and sooner or later, the risks of us running low on space to hold these waste could be quite real; can't have it too close to the settlement, regulated nuclear exclusion zones, etc.

Politics and big oil is one thing, but there are realistic constraints on top of those.

Depends, if there's too much dam built on a river, I think that that's when the benefits outweigh the costs like what's currently happening in the Mekong River, China has 12 dams built in it while the other countries that are crossed by that river on has a total of 2 and now those at the lower end of the river are experiencing droughts.

Every construction of a dam comes with a significant trade-off. I'm not saying that we can't build a dam but there should be proper evaluation done to it to ensure that the reasons that we have are concrete and sound.

[Wimex]

I have noticed that bitcoin mining, despite the fact that it is making its efforts to minimize damage to the environment, cannot be classified as an ally against climate change, moreover.. if it wanted to contribute to it, it would simply have to discontinue its work, but this is something that is not going to happen, nor could the big industries that are the biggest culprits of environmental pollution stop fulfilling their functions overnight when they contribute to the economy and for governments this is something much more important than preserving the environment, something wrong indeed, since if we destroy the world where we live, nothing they are doing would be worth it

 Despite everything, i cannot discredit what bitcoin mining is doing, however the people who practice this work are trying to do something, and although it seems that they are not.. there is evidence that what they do does contribute some way to reduce the environmental impact.

 I was investigating more about it and found that the environmentalist Troy Cross who is mentioned in this article: https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/07/24/the-single-most-important-truth-about-bitcoin-mining-energy-and-the-environment/

He talks a bit about his perspective on the influence of bitcoin to reduce pollution, and reduce the cost of energy, proving in a certain way that the use of bitcoin mining is not as bad as they paint it to be.