Cambridge University Shatters Bitcoin Energy Myths

[sesterceshop]

Cambridge University just gave us a big update on Bitcoin's energy usage, and it's good news. Turns out, previous estimates were way off the mark. In 2021, we thought Bitcoin consumed 104 terawatt-hours, but it's actually 89.0 TWh. And in 2022, it dropped from 105.3 TWh to 95.5 TWh, about the same as U.S. tumble dryers. The old method didn't consider the efficiency of mining hardware, but now we've got a more accurate picture. According to Cambridge, in 2023, it's around 70.4 TWh. So, Bitcoin's environmental impact isn't as bad as we thought!

Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/cambridge-universitys-updated-bitcoin-electricity-consumption-index-reveals-lower-energy-consumption

[dothebeats]

First of all, thank you for sharing this good news and the link for anyone who wants to read more on this topic.

This news is really good for the image of Bitcoin, for as well know there is an existing negative image of Bitcoin that makes it hard for the general public to fully be interested in it. Due to a lot of negative advertisements and issues of scamming, Bitcoin has been receiving a negative image from those who are not fully educated by the actual system Bitcoin operates. Hence, having this news that Bitcoin is not causing such a big negative environmental impact is a form of redeeming thing for it. Those who are always using this argument will be debunked and one less negative point will be erased in favor of Bitcoin.

As for anyone who is interested in seeing real-time data regarding the Bitcoin electricity consumption index, here is the link: https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci

[Lucius]

~snip~
According to Cambridge, in 2023, it's around 70.4 TWh. So, Bitcoin's environmental impact isn't as bad as we thought!

When you say "we", who exactly are you referring to? Those who use their brains and know how to interpret facts from independent research never even thought that Bitcoin has any significant impact on the environment.

Various so-called "experts" and journalists who are paid to spread lies never cared about this data, as it will not matter to them even now how much energy is actually needed for Bitcoin in one year. Even if the consumption is only 1 TWh and it comes from renewable sources, their lies about how the world will remain in the dark or how temperatures will rise because of Bitcoin will continue.

In this way, they are actually covering up decades of systematic destruction of our planet at all levels, and now they are looking for who to blame for all that - and Bitcoin is more than an ideal victim because there are few who will defend it publicly.

[NotATether]

As for anyone who is interested in seeing real-time data regarding the Bitcoin electricity consumption index, here is the link: https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci

It says that 70.4TWh figure is the lower bound. The estimated value is quite higher, at around 120TWh (for 2023). Shouldn't we using this value for reference, or am I missing something?

I am pretty sure that mining rig efficiency had not been accounted for before, but at least between the 2023 months there is not much difference - however from 2021 to 2023 there is a big drop in electricity consumption I think is due to efficiency - and the price drop.

[kryptqnick]

It's important to have academic institutions of high reputation because it's great to see that they care about the accuracy of their reports and reviewing the accuracy when new data comes to light. I read through the Cambridge article, and they accounted for the improvement of mining hardware: it became way more powerful and more efficient, so they considered it alongside the increase of hashrate over time, reviewing their previous assumptions that relied on more usage of older hardware. This, it seems, is largely what allowed to readjust the total energy consumption estimates. Keep in mind that even this new number is an estimate, little more than an educated guess that relies on pretty big assumptions, such as "that miners, as rational economic actors, will avoid operating unprofitable hardware".

[MusaMohamed]

Cambridge University just gave us a big update on Bitcoin's energy usage, and it's good news.

Their data collection methodology have some big assumptions that include some big IFs. Their methodology have weakness that can make their data are not accurate.

8 assumptions are a lot to believe their data and report are accurate.

You can read report from Cambridge University report and compare it with Bitcoinminingcouncil.com which is an open forum for Bitcoin miners. It has quarterly report about global Bitcoin mining too. A latest report is for First half of 2023.

If you need more details, Bitcoin Mining Council always has video attached with each report.

[aoluain]

Even including the assumptions I would welcome this report because it counters the
false negatives which have been spread about Bitcoins energy consumption for a few
years.

The name Cambridge University does carry some weight, I wonder who is going to use
this info? I suppose it can be used to trump any point made about the inefficiencies
in the Bitcoin mining industry....

[hatshepsut93]

And in 2022, it dropped from 105.3 TWh to 95.5 TWh, about the same as U.S. tumble dryers.

Analogiies with tumble dryers, Christmas lights, banking industry and all the other uses are bad, because you can't imagine modern society without them, but you can easily imagine it without Bitcoin, since most people are not using it anyway.

So, Bitcoin's environmental impact isn't as bad as we thought!

The estimation only changed by 10%, hardly a groundbreaking reevaluation. What has always been the case though is the fact that Bitcoin consumed a small part of global electricity, and electricity is a small part of emissions. A small part of a small part is a tiny part. Putting all mining to a halt would have such a small positive impact on environment that it could not be even measured.

[Fiatless]

Cambridge University just gave us a big update on Bitcoin's energy usage, and it's good news. Turns out, previous estimates were way off the mark. In 2021, we thought Bitcoin consumed 104 terawatt-hours, but it's actually 89.0 TWh. And in 2022, it dropped from 105.3 TWh to 95.5 TWh, about the same as U.S. tumble dryers. The old method didn't consider the efficiency of mining hardware, but now we've got a more accurate picture. According to Cambridge, in 2023, it's around 70.4 TWh. So, Bitcoin's environmental impact isn't as bad as we thought!

Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/cambridge-universitys-updated-bitcoin-electricity-consumption-index-reveals-lower-energy-consumption

For a long time, there have been several negative campaigns about the electricity consumption of Bitcoin. Several companies, NGOs and individuals have sponsored diverse campaigns to make people see bitcoin as an enemy of the environment. Most researchers and their findings were manipulated just because they wanted to spread lies and their evil agenda. So it is good news to see biased free research that gave a reasonable picture of Bitcoin energy consumption. With bitcoin miners embracing the more green source of power the energy consumption will keep reducing in the future. Each time these acclaimed environmentalists point to Bitcoin as one of the problems of the environment, I refer them to this website: https://bitcoincleanup.com/

[Yamane_Keto]

The generation of addresses will differ depending on who funds you. I can make this address a bad one and say that Bitcoin consumes 95.5 TW.h/yr, which is higher than Finland’s consumption, where it consumes 84 TW.h/yr or we can say that Bitcoin's electricity consumption is very small, as the world consumes about 23,398 TW.h/yr.

Bitcoin's energy consumption, although the difference you mentioned (from 104 to 89.0) is not large, but as soon as electricity is generated from cleaner sources and at a cheaper price, mining equipment will move there, and renewable energies are not completely clean, as the cost of mining the materials used in their industries and disposing of waste increases. The resulting all of this will cause environmental problems.

Numbers sources U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

[MusaMohamed]

Each time these acclaimed environmentalists point to Bitcoin as one of the problems of the environment, I refer them to this website: https://bitcoincleanup.com/

If you can, refer them to some more resources to enlighten them more.

Endthefud.org (Energy - Bitcoin wastes energy).
Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument

Watching Youtube videos from Bitcoin Mining Council with their slides that are informative and insightful is helpful for debunking fud.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Cambridge University just gave us a big update on Bitcoin's energy usage, and it's good news. Turns out, previous estimates were way off the mark. In 2021, we thought Bitcoin consumed 104 terawatt-hours, but it's actually 89.0 TWh. And in 2022, it dropped from 105.3 TWh to 95.5 TWh, about the same as U.S. tumble dryers. The old method didn't consider the efficiency of mining hardware, but now we've got a more accurate picture. According to Cambridge, in 2023, it's around 70.4 TWh. So, Bitcoin's environmental impact isn't as bad as we thought!

Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/cambridge-universitys-updated-bitcoin-electricity-consumption-index-reveals-lower-energy-consumption

For a long time, there have been several negative campaigns about the electricity consumption of Bitcoin. Several companies, NGOs and individuals have sponsored diverse campaigns to make people see bitcoin as an enemy of the environment. Most researchers and their findings were manipulated just because they wanted to spread lies and their evil agenda. So it is good news to see biased free research that gave a reasonable picture of Bitcoin energy consumption. With bitcoin miners embracing the more green source of power the energy consumption will keep reducing in the future. Each time these acclaimed environmentalists point to Bitcoin as one of the problems of the environment, I refer them to this website: https://bitcoincleanup.com/

You are right about more miners adopting green source of power as one of the solutions to BTC energy consumption concerns.
With more studies still being carried out, the efficiency problem of these mining machines is being improved upon by either converting the energy from one form to another for usage in homes and offices or developing hypothesis and testing it, such as this bearing on the electric consumption it can afford.

El Salvador uses energy produced from its volcanic mountains and as such, energy consumption that involve a theory as this involving electricity, is more useful to countries or regions who rely of constant electric supply or energy supply from a distributed system to function.

[franky1]

easy math

2023 average hashrate 350EH

so lets use some current gen asics
bitmain 120T for 2.76kw
2916666.666666667 asics = 8,050,000kw/h = 8GH/h = 70Tw per year

bitmain 151T for 3.247kw
2317880.794701987 asics = 7526158.940397351kw/h = 7.5GH/h = 66Tw per year

bitmain 141T for 3.031kw
2482269.503546099 asics = 7523758.865248227kw/h = 7.5GH/h = 65.9Tw per year

bitmain 257T for 5.345kw
1361867.704280156 asics = 7279182.879377432kw/h = 7.27GH/h = 63Tw per year

.. it is funny that i said years ago cambridge puffed the numbers up for political reasons and would later re-arrange/recheck number and find them to be lower later

2022 was around 40TW per year not 100

[tread93]

This is great news! Is it because of the volcano mining and also just overall better more efficient miners? Why were they so off on the original calculation I wonder

[Darker45]

Cambridge University just gave us a big update on Bitcoin's energy usage, and it's good news.

Their data collection methodology have some big assumptions that include some big IFs. Their methodology have weakness that can make their data are not accurate.

8 assumptions are a lot to believe their data and report are accurate.

You can read report from Cambridge University report and compare it with Bitcoinminingcouncil.com which is an open forum for Bitcoin miners. It has quarterly report about global Bitcoin mining too. A latest report is for First half of 2023.

If you need more details, Bitcoin Mining Council always has video attached with each report.

Accuracy can never be 100%. The new methodology of Cambridge may be more accurate than the earlier ones but, as you pointed out, it can certainly be polished further. Later data and indices will certainly be more and more accurate.

The good thing with such studies is that it involves the academe, an institution that connotes neutrality and objectivity. Data from the Bitcoin Mining Council could be more accurate but they could also be perceived differently knowing that they're an organization that's made up of the miners themselves. There could be conflict of interest.

[justdimin]

Cambridge University just gave us a big update on Bitcoin's energy usage, and it's good news. Turns out, previous estimates were way off the mark. In 2021, we thought Bitcoin consumed 104 terawatt-hours, but it's actually 89.0 TWh. And in 2022, it dropped from 105.3 TWh to 95.5 TWh, about the same as U.S. tumble dryers. The old method didn't consider the efficiency of mining hardware, but now we've got a more accurate picture. According to Cambridge, in 2023, it's around 70.4 TWh. So, Bitcoin's environmental impact isn't as bad as we thought!

It was never that much of a big deal, because spending energy is not the issue at the core, how we make that energy is the real problem. If there is energy created, the nit will be used ,and this is a way that we use it, so it is not going to be an important difference, we can't just say that energy should be given for free to someone, obviously it would be used for something and in this case it is mining.

However, how we make that energy is the most important part, it does allow us to get better at it one way or another. If you make it from coal, you are ruining the world, if you make it from hydro or solar or wind, then you are making the world a better place. So focus on how you create it, not how you use it after it's  created.