[2014-04-07] What is the Carbon Footprint of a Bitcoin?

[lynn_402]

http://www.coindesk.com/carbon-footprint-bitcoin/

While the figures seem somewhat scary at first (312lbs of carbon dioxide into the air per coin, equivalent of 15.9 gallons of gazoline burnt), it's most probably way less than what is required for the maintenance of fiat currencies: energy used by banks and ATM, building and fueling armored cars, printing money, powering the myriad of computers used to make the money virtual, etc.

Besides, it can be argued that fiat currencies, because of inflation, favours mass consumption, while deflatory currencies like Bitcoin favour savings. This alone definitely overcompensates for the carbon footprint of the network.

Also, since competition is fierce, miners who use cheap, renewable energy (ie. solar) will ultimately be at a great advantage.

[1715167363]

1715167363

[1715167363]

1715167363

[DannyHamilton]

http://www.coindesk.com/carbon-footprint-bitcoin/

While the figures seem somewhat scary at first (312lbs of carbon dioxide into the air per coin, equivalent of 15.9 gallons of gazoline burnt), it's most probably way less than what is required for the maintenance of fiat currencies: energy used by banks and ATM, building and fueling armored cars, printing money, powering the myriad of computers used to make the money virtual, etc.

Besides, it can be argued that fiat currencies, because of inflation, favours mass consumption, while deflatory currencies like Bitcoin favour savings. This alone definitely overcompensates for the carbon footprint of the network.

Also, since competition is fierce, miners who use cheap, renewable energy (ie. solar) will ultimately be at a great advantage.

This is very misleading.

How do you determine how much of the mining is used to "create" new bitcoins, and how much of it is used to process and secure transactions?

Personally, I'd say that the creation of the new bitcoins uses 0 energy and results in 0 lbs of carbon dioxide.  It's the intensive processing and securing of a fast, global, irreversible, secure payment system that is creating the carbon dioxide and using the energy.  Now, divide the total carbon dioxide by the number of satoshis moved in a day and see how much is created per transacted satoshi.

After the year 2140, when mining continues at a significant pace, and 0 new bitcoins are being created, how exactly are they going to divide by zero to get the pollution per new bitcoin?

[lynn_402]

This is very misleading.

How do you determine how much of the mining is used to "create" new bitcoins, and how much of it is used to process and secure transactions?

Personally, I'd say that the creation of the new bitcoins uses 0 energy and results in 0 lbs of carbon dioxide.  It's the intensive processing and securing of a fast, global, irreversible, secure payment system that is creating the carbon dioxide and using the energy.  Now, divide the total carbon dioxide by the number of satoshis moved in a day and see how much is created per transacted satoshi.

After the year 2140, when mining continues at a significant pace, and 0 new bitcoins are being created, how exactly are they going to divide by zero to get the pollution per new bitcoin?

Indeed it is somewhat misleading, but the main issue with this is that 312lbs of CO2 * 3600 new BTC is produced everyday by miners, and it is increasing by about 20%/2 weeks (though that rate won't sustain itself much longer, especially if the current price stays stable).

I do agree that it is worth it to maintain this efficient system, and like I said, it is and probably always will be more energy-efficient than the current financial system.

[ArticMine]

This question ignores a very important issue namely what exactly happens to the heat produced by Bitcoin mining. If one mines Bitcoin where there is a need for space heating, with most parts of Canada during the winter being an extreme case, then the carbon impact may in fact be negligible if at all since the Bitcoin mining is displacing another source of carbon emissions that would have been used to provide the space heating. At the other extreme if one mines Bitcoin in say parts of Africa then the carbon emissions will be magnified by the need to cool the mining equipment. The net impact of this is that "proof of work" may end up becoming "proof of cold" as Bitcoin mining will by the forces of economics migrate to where the heat produced is actually a valuable commodity rather than a waste product.

The net result of this is that a Bitcoin transaction in January in say Melbourne would be sent via fibre optic cables to Winnipeg for processing. The reverse situation would occur in say July.

[lynn_402]

This question ignores a very important issue namely what exactly happens to the heat produced by Bitcoin mining. If one mines Bitcoin where there is a need for space heating, with most parts of Canada during the winter being an extreme case, then the carbon impact may in fact be negligible if at all since the Bitcoin mining is displacing another source of carbon emissions that would have been used to provide the space heating. At the other extreme if one mines Bitcoin in say parts of Africa then the carbon emissions will be magnified by the need to cool the mining equipment. The net impact of this is that "proof of work" may end up becoming "proof of cold" as Bitcoin mining will by the forces of economics migrate to where the heat produced is actually a valuable commodity rather than a waste product.

The net result of this is that a Bitcoin transaction in January in say Melbourne would be sent via fibre optic cables to Winnipeg for processing. The reverse situation would occur in say July.

That's quite right!
Another argument: anything that removes power from governments can only be good for the protection of environment (less war, less wasteful spending, less subventions to obsolete and wasteful technologies in order to preserve jobs, etc.)

[bitbouillion]

http://www.coindesk.com/carbon-footprint-bitcoin/

Mw/h - never heard of such a unit for electric energy.

It's:
Wh or kWh or MWh or GWh ...

[jbrnt]

However misleading the calculations are, it is undeniable that crypto mining is using a LOT of electricity and is not enviromentally friendly. I am not saying everyone should stop mining, but asic manufacturers should do more about power efficiency. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

However misleading the calculations are, it is undeniable that crypto mining is using a LOT of electricity and is not enviromentally friendly. I am not saying everyone should stop mining, but asic manufacturers should do more about power efficiency. 

... it is not a LOT of energy, e.g. global energy usage is at approx. 16 TeraWatts. [10^12] (I'll let you demonstrate the math that btc mining consumption is in fact a "LOT")

A large proportion of electricity used by miners will be nuclear, hydro and geothermal, so zero "carbon footprints" observable (which itself is a BS pseduo-scientific cult mystery unit).

[lynn_402]

However misleading the calculations are, it is undeniable that crypto mining is using a LOT of electricity and is not enviromentally friendly. I am not saying everyone should stop mining, but asic manufacturers should do more about power efficiency.  

If they were more power-efficient, it would be more profitable so more people would mine, the result is the same
It might be even worse because of the increase in mining-machines production.

But have you read the other posts in this thread? There's plenty of arguments why it's not so bad. There's no way to make a currency, or anything that matters, without energy. Bitcoin's amount of pollution is worth it.

Perhaps we should all plant a tree for every coin we have? It would more than compensate
http://www.treesforthefuture.org/donate/
It only costs 0.10$ each. I'll send them an e-mail so they'll consider accepting donations in BTC.

[lynn_402]

A large proportion of electricity used by miners will be nuclear, hydro and geothermal, so zero "carbon footprints" observable (which itself is a BS pseduo-scientific cult mystery unit).

It is an imprecise unit, because there's a huge amount of variables when gauging the amount of CO2 something produces. Still, it's the best we have and it represents fairly well the impact on air quality that a process has.

Also, hydro and nuclear electricity do have a big environmental impact too, even if they don't affect the air quality.

[marcus_of_augustus]

A large proportion of electricity used by miners will be nuclear, hydro and geothermal, so zero "carbon footprints" observable (which itself is a BS pseduo-scientific cult mystery unit).

It is an imprecise unit, because there's a huge amount of variables when gauging the amount of CO2 something produces. Still, it's the best we have and it represents fairly well the impact on air quality that a process has.

Your emotive invocation of "air quality" regarding CO2 is wrong on at least 2 levels that I'm aware of. CO2 is a colourless, odourless, benign gas at concentrations up to ~1000ppm with standards safe levels set around there. Bitcoin mining is not going to affect "air quality" in the slightest, stop spreading FUD and demonstrating your scientific/engineering ignorance.

[lynn_402]

Your emotive invocation of "air quality" regarding CO2 is wrong on at least 2 levels that I'm aware of. CO2 is a colourless, odourless, benign gas at concentrations up to ~1000ppm with standards safe levels set around there. Bitcoin mining is not going to affect "air quality" in the slightest, stop spreading FUD and demonstrating your scientific/engineering ignorance.

You're saying that the drastic augmentation of CO2 that has been going on since industrialisation has no impact on the Earth's atmospheric condition and its ability to sustain human life?

I do know that CO2 is directly harmless to us up to ~1000ppm, but that is irrelevant. The problem is its long-term impact as a greenhouse gas.

And there are other problems associated with Bitcoin mining. The production and disposal of electronic equipment release huge amount of heavy elements in the environment, this is especially a problem since miners hardly last more than a year. Still, like I said a few times in this thread, it is a fair price to pay for the economic advantages that Bitcoin gives, so I don't get why you're saying I'm spreading FUD - unless you believe that humans have no effect on the environment and its ability to sustain us.

[bryant.coleman]

Hmmm... the government now has got another reason to ban the Bitcoin. They can now say that Bitcoin is the leading cause for global warming. Or better, they can introduce a Carbon tax on Bitcoin. 

[odolvlobo]

However misleading the calculations are, it is undeniable that crypto mining is using a LOT of electricity and is not enviromentally friendly. I am not saying everyone should stop mining, but asic manufacturers should do more about power efficiency.  

ASICs are extremely efficient (compared to GPUs and CPUs) but efficiency does not help at all.

The problem is due to the economics of mining. Basically, if it costs less than a bitcoin to mine a bitcoin, then miners will add hashing power until the cost approaches one bitcoin. In general, one bitcoin worth of energy will be used to mine each bitcoin, regardless of how efficient the equipment is.

Currently, the hash rate is limited by the cost of the equipment and not the cost of the power. The result is that cost of the power is about 1/10 of a bitcoin for each bitcoin mined. As the cost of the equipment drops and the hash rate starts to level out, the cost of the power will rise to 1 bitcoin for each bitcoin mined.

Bitcoin is halving its carbon footprint every 4 years, at least in terms of a bitcoin, because of the halving of the block reward. But in real terms, this is countered by the rise of the value of a bitcoin.

Anyway, the amount of energy being consumed is small compared other sources of consumption. Assuming $1000 per bitcoin, $0.10 per kWH, and 1,314,900 bitcoins mined per year, a total of about 13 GWH is consumed each year. Compared to the 20 million GWH consumed each year by the entire world, that is minuscule. Even if the price rises to $10,000, it would still be less than 0.001% of the total energy consumption.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Anyway, the amount of energy being consumed is small compared other sources of consumption. Assuming $1000 per bitcoin, $0.10 per kWH, and 1,314,900 bitcoins mined per year, a total of about 13 GWH is consumed each year. Compared to the 20 million GWH consumed each year by the entire world, that is minuscule. Even if the price rises to $10,000, it would still be less than 0.1% of the total energy consumption.

20,000 TW.h is probably an estimate of electricity only ... total global energy use is ~ 145,000 TW.h. (shipping, mining, trucking and military dwarf domestic consumption)

so @ $10,000/btc order of 0.00001% of current total energy consumption ... is that a "LOT"?

(at ridiculous $1 million/btc for 'conservative' carbon bigfoot class bitcoin, 0.001% of global total energy consumption).

therefore carbon footprint of bitcoin is pratically zero on any sensible relative scale.

TL;DR ... forget about it, guy needs to get a life and find something that is not a fantasy scare story to whinge about.

[lynn_402]

TL;DR ... forget about it, guy needs to get a life and find something that is not a fantasy scare story to whinge about.

Why the fuck are you accusing me of whinging about a fantasy scare story?
Knowing about the ecological impact of Bitcoin mining is important for those of us that cares about leaving a good environment for our children. The statements in the article are facts, and I do know that its a very small percentage of the world's consumption of energy and it is worth it for the economical advantages it brings, that's why I support Bitcoin and spend time on this forum... What an unpleasant climate-change-denier you are.

[coinits]

OP you need to wake the fuck up. You are suffering from Al Gore Syndrome which is akin to Stockholm Syndrome. You are in love with your captors.

Steps to recovery from your brainwashing:

1) There is no such thing as a carbon footprint.
2) One large eruption from a volcano outputs enough greenhouse gases to supersede all of humanities expulsions 10+ fold.
3) watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk let a fucking comedian undo the damage that years of government indoctrination centers aka schools imposed on you.
4) CO2, and lots of it, is necessary for life to exist

Want to do something about the environment?

Get the fucking government to stop spraying the upper atmosphere with Barium, Aluminum, and
Titanium

While you are at it tell them to stop heating the upper atmosphere with their HAARP

Tell them to clean up the poison in the Gulf of Mexico.

Hurry before your hair falls out due to Fukushima Flu.

Some say that you can't fix stupid but I am trying to.

[lynn_402]

OP you need to wake the fuck up. You are suffering from Al Gore Syndrome which is akin to Stockholm Syndrome. You are in love with your captors.

Which captors are you talking about? The governments do nothing to reduce our impact on air quality. Gee they even fund tar sands exploitation in Canada.
Maybe you're saying my captors are the 2 generations of scientists that have provided undeniable proofs of the fact that human activities change the climate in a way that will exponentially reduce our quality of life for the next hundreds of years?

1) There is no such thing as a carbon footprint.

That's just plain stupid. Every cumbustion and energy consumption we make involves creating CO2.

2) One large eruption from a volcano outputs enough greenhouse gases to supersede all of humanities expulsions 10+ fold.

Yup, like those that created a mass extinction in the Permian period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

3) watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk let a fucking comedian undo the damage that years of government indoctrination centers aka schools imposed on you.

Thanks, but I find science more reliable than comedy.

4) CO2, and lots of it, is necessary for life to exist

Of course, plants takes the CO2 that is directly useless to us and gives us O2 in return. But there's less and less plants, and more and more CO2, surely you can see the imbalance that this causes? Even good things are bad when in too high quantity - it's effect as a greenhouse gas will make our life more miserable in the long term, if we don't make a drastic change in what we use as energy sources.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Why the fuck are you accusing me of whinging about a fantasy scare story?

Are you disputing my numbers with this statement or just hurling abuse?

What an unpleasant climate-change-denier you are.

I guess that is all the evidence I need, you are typical math denier ... from the paucity of numbers presented in any of your posts, but an excess of abuse and derogatory rhetoric, it's clear you have zero argument. We'll let the audience decide who is the "unpleasant denier", shall we?

[coinits]

OP you need to wake the fuck up. You are suffering from Al Gore Syndrome which is akin to Stockholm Syndrome. You are in love with your captors.

Which captors are you talking about? The governments do nothing to reduce our impact on air quality. Gee they even fund tar sands exploitation in Canada.
Maybe you're saying my captors are the 2 generations of scientists that have provided undeniable proofs of the fact that human activities change the climate in a way that will exponentially reduce our quality of life for the next hundreds of years?

1) There is no such thing as a carbon footprint.

That's just plain stupid. Every cumbustion and energy consumption we make involves creating CO2.

2) One large eruption from a volcano outputs enough greenhouse gases to supersede all of humanities expulsions 10+ fold.

Yup, like those that created a mass extinction in the Permian period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

3) watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk let a fucking comedian undo the damage that years of government indoctrination centers aka schools imposed on you.

Thanks, but I find science more reliable than comedy.

4) CO2, and lots of it, is necessary for life to exist

Of course, plants takes the CO2 that is directly useless to us and gives us O2 in return. But there's less and less plants, and more and more CO2, surely you can see the imbalance that this causes? Even good things are bad when in too high quantity - it's effect as a greenhouse gas will make our life more miserable in the long term, if we don't make a drastic change in what we use as energy sources.

The tard runs deep in this thread.

Debunk this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZepVJ2XMi0

Face it we won you lost. Climategate showed what you guys were made of. FAIL!

[coinits]

oh and your statement that there are less plants and trees now is 100% bullshit. The earth is greener than at any other point in its recorded history.

[Singlebyte]

Coinits......love your posts!   How right you are!

[lynn_402]

oh and your statement that there are less plants and trees now is 100% bullshit. The earth is greener than at any other point in its recorded history.

Wrong:
The amount of plant and trees effective in the CO2 -> O2 cycle is decreasing because of deforestation, urbanisation and agriculture (America's maize and Asia's rice are very innefective in that cycle).

The tard runs deep in this thread.

Debunk this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZepVJ2XMi0

Face it we won you lost. Climategate showed what you guys were made of. FAIL!

That's seriously how you refute? By linking a video of some random unqualified guy on youtube who believes that more than 40 years of research on climate change are a big conspiracy? The truth is that no big organization profits from reducing human waste and preserving the ecosystem (well perhaps Al Gore's political career if it still exists, but it is irrelevant.) Since you like comedy, let me show you what you sound like to me: http://youtu.be/Q_xI_8aLjds?t=3m15s

The only way to mature as a human being is to abandon the comfort of convenient lies, and open your logic to hard truth. Please, grow some balls, use your brain that billions of years of evolution built for you (you do believe this is a thing, don't you?) to educate yourself and stop being what's wrong with the world.

You may start by this simple Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[bryant.coleman]

oh and your statement that there are less plants and trees now is 100% bullshit. The earth is greener than at any other point in its recorded history.

Do you have any proof for this BS?

Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852. It has been estimated that about half of the Earth's mature tropical forests—between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet have now been destroyed

Estimates vary widely as to the extent of tropical deforestation. Scientists estimate that one fifth of the world's tropical rainforest was destroyed between 1960 and 1990. They claim that that rainforests 50 years ago covered 14% of the world's land surface, now only cover 5–7%, and that all tropical forests will be gone by the middle of the 21st century.

The forests are being destroyed at a rapid pace. Almost 90% of West Africa's rainforest has been destroyed. Since the arrival of humans 2000 years ago, Madagascar has lost two thirds of its original rainforest. At present rates, tropical rainforests in Indonesia would be logged out in 10 years and Papua New Guinea in 13 to 16 years.

[coinits]

oh and your statement that there are less plants and trees now is 100% bullshit. The earth is greener than at any other point in its recorded history.

Wrong:
The amount of plant and trees effective in the CO2 -> O2 cycle is decreasing because of deforestation, urbanisation and agriculture (America's maize and Asia's rice are very innefective in that cycle).

The tard runs deep in this thread.

Debunk this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZepVJ2XMi0

Face it we won you lost. Climategate showed what you guys were made of. FAIL!

That's seriously how you refute? By linking a video of some random unqualified guy on youtube who believes that more than 40 years of research on climate change are a big conspiracy? The truth is that no big organization profits from reducing human waste and preserving the ecosystem (well perhaps Al Gore's political career if it still exists, but it is irrelevant.) Since you like comedy, let me show you what you sound like to me: http://youtu.be/Q_xI_8aLjds?t=3m15s

The only way to mature as a human being is to abandon the comfort of convenient lies, and open your logic to hard truth. Please, grow some balls, use your brain that billions of years of evolution built for you (you do believe this is a thing, don't you?) to educate yourself and stop being what's wrong with the world.

You may start by this simple Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Unqualified guys? Who have doctorates in Climatology and are leading researchers in their field? Shill you fucking fail. Go back to your playbook and find another idiotic phrase to say.

[coinits]

oh and your statement that there are less plants and trees now is 100% bullshit. The earth is greener than at any other point in its recorded history.

Wrong:
The amount of plant and trees effective in the CO2 -> O2 cycle is decreasing because of deforestation, urbanisation and agriculture (America's maize and Asia's rice are very innefective in that cycle).

The tard runs deep in this thread.

Debunk this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZepVJ2XMi0

Face it we won you lost. Climategate showed what you guys were made of. FAIL!

That's seriously how you refute? By linking a video of some random unqualified guy on youtube who believes that more than 40 years of research on climate change are a big conspiracy? The truth is that no big organization profits from reducing human waste and preserving the ecosystem (well perhaps Al Gore's political career if it still exists, but it is irrelevant.) Since you like comedy, let me show you what you sound like to me: http://youtu.be/Q_xI_8aLjds?t=3m15s

The only way to mature as a human being is to abandon the comfort of convenient lies, and open your logic to hard truth. Please, grow some balls, use your brain that billions of years of evolution built for you (you do believe this is a thing, don't you?) to educate yourself and stop being what's wrong with the world.

You may start by this simple Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

I'll counter your graph a call bullshit according to the Society of American Foresters: http://forestry.about.com/library/weekly/aa031900.htm Also globally there are more trees growing now then at any other time in recorded history.

FACT: Increases in CO2 follow rises in global temperature. The science proves it 100%. You obviously did not watch the video because the real science is there in all of its naked glory proving that global climate change has nothing to do with humanity.

And it is laughable that you counter real science with a link to a Wiki.

Like I said, the tard runs deep in this thread and I guess it is true. I can't fix your stupid.

[lynn_402]

Unqualified guys? Who have doctorates in Climatology and are leading researchers in their field? Shill you fucking fail. Go back to your playbook and find another idiotic phrase to say.

3) watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk let a fucking comedian undo the damage that years of government indoctrination centers aka schools imposed on you.

I'll let you find the inconsistency in your statements

Seriously, someone who has a doctorate can be just as corrupted and/or wrong as anybody else. What counts are the arguments, and those you indirectly cited utterly fail to see the broader picture.

Have you heard about Milankovitch cycles? Basically, they are periodic changes in the planet's eccencentricity and axial tilt that affects climate, and its effect have been consistent for millions of years. Its primary effect is an oscilliation of +/- 2°C in the global mean temperatures. Its periodicity and its effects have been very consistent, and according to this effect, we should be in the -1°C period right now - but the atmosphere is actually getting hotter, and the upward slope fits perfectly with industrialisation. The few hundreds of years during which the mean temperature has been getting hotter is way too short a period for it to have been triggered by any natural cause (other than the sudden fall of a gigantic meteorite or a very sudden and intense period of volcanic activities)

Also globally there are more trees growing now then at any other time in recorded history.

Even if that was true (which I greatly doubt), this can't possibly compensate for the ongoing deforestation. Please reply to bryant.coleman's arguments with sources if you want to prove that your statement is true.

I'll counter your graph a call bullshit according to the Society of American Foresters: http://forestry.about.com/library/weekly/aa031900.htm

I applaud the reforestation effort and other advances that are mentionned in this link, but nowhere does it say there's more tree now than there was a few hundred years ago. So you can't base your arguments on this, nor say that the graph I posted is fake. It says there are more trees now in the USA than there was in 1920, that's cool, but it's still half less than during colonisation. Also, there are locations where deforestation is quite worse than in the USA (Brazil, Canada)

And it is laughable that you counter real science with a link to a Wiki.

Your youtube video is more credible?
Wiki is adequate to settle internet arguments.

[bryant.coleman]

Also globally there are more trees growing now then at any other time in recorded history.

Are you just acting like you are stupid, or are you really this stupid? Next time at least post some semi-reliable links. Not some made up Youtube video made by school kids.

[Sithara007]

This

The earth is greener than at any other point in its recorded history.

and this:

Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852. It has been estimated that about half of the Earth's mature tropical forests—between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet have now been destroyed

So new theory emerges. Destruction of the forests make the earth greener. Bravo!