9 ms·

How much electricity do you think traditional money printing and transfers consume?

TulliusCicero 6y ago
A lot less per transaction than Bitcoin? But I'm no expert.
graeme 6y ago
Much less? Bitcoin currently powers almost none of the world’s transactions, yet consumes all that energy. The entire us consumes 75 twh in a year, the same as bitcoin’s global energy use. Of that, the entire commercial sector is about 12 twh. That’s not just banks. That’s every company. Banks alone are surely far less. Maybe 2-3 twh? And the us is 15% of global gdp. So, global finance might consume about 14-32 twh. Again, that is while doing all of global finance. Bitcoin powers a rounding error of transactions yet consumes 75 twh. There’s just no comparison energy wise. My math could be off by several orders of magnitude and bitcoin would still consume more if it were actually powering the world’s transactions. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
- blake1 6y ago
  The US consumes about 4 PWh/year, so bitcoin isn't comparable with the nation as a whole. However, that is more power consumption than many individual states, so your overall point remains completely valid.
  - graeme 6y ago
    Whoops yeah that should have been 9.4 quadrillion BTU. The online calculator I used for TWH conversion was very wrong. Looks like the correct value is about 2,000 twh for the us commercial sector? If we assume banks are 10% of that, then it’s 200 twh. 3x bitcoin. But also, handling literally all finance and banking in the US. Vs essentially nothing for bitcoin, compared to the scale of the us economy.
  - matt-attack 6y ago
    Your units are funny. Using W-hr (energy) and then making it a rate by making it per year which gets you back to power. You could have just said, “the US consumes energy at a rate of 450 GW”. There’s no need to introduce hrs and years to the mix. Watts describe precisely what you’re attempting to quantify. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=4+PW+hr%2Fyear+in+GW&oq=4+PW+hr%2Fyear+in+GW https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=4+PW+hr%2Fyear+in+GW&o...
- phaemon 6y ago
  Your numbers are totally wrong. The fact your own link suggests that bitcoin uses as much electrical energy as Chile should tell you it's not close to the USA. Recheck?
- biolurker1 6y ago
  Bitcoin transacted way more money that PayPal etc
  - graeme 6y ago
    People actually buy stuff on paypal. They processed 2.5 billion transactions in 2020. Bitcoin processed about 250 million transactions. The total amount of reported money transacted might be higher for bitcoin but that doesn’t come from contact with the real economy. So that depends on the valuation of bitcoin rather than economic impact. https://www.statista.com/statistics/277841/paypals-total-payment-volume/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277841/paypals-total-pay... https://www.statista.com/statistics/730806/daily-number-of-bitcoin-transactions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/730806/daily-number-of-b...
- issamehh 6y ago
  It'd be really nice if I could find a study on this, but just because bitcoin doesn't power the majority of the transactions doesn't mean it couldn't do so without the energy needs scaling linearly with transactions. If anything I'd imagine it could become more efficient as more transactions were taking place. I see people argue this a lot and I think it's too narrow of a view on the situation. Of course it'd be much better for us to adopt a crypto currency that uses a different algorithm that has even less energy usage. Even without that though I think it could prove to be more efficient than existing financial systems.
cool_dude85 6y ago
When confronted with relatively concrete studies on Bitcoin's wasteful energy use, are you going to point to the fact that physical money printer energy use has not been studied to muddy the waters? The reason it hasn't been studied is that it doesn't use a huge amount of electricity. Anyway, as another way of answering your question, physical money printing and transfers require no electricity at all, predating the invention of electric power by thousands of years.
- syshum 6y ago
  Pretty sure the modern machines that 1. Print the money 2. Harvest the Cotton and other raw materials 3. Transport the money 4. Secure the money (even in electronic form) 5. and about 100 other things All use "energy" the point of the OP's comment was about "wasted energy" which i would image is tied to climate change The idea that "printed money uses no energy because it is old tech" is just ignorant
  - davidgerard 6y ago
    Zero bitcoiners going "BUT WHAT ABOUT CONVENTIONAL MONEY HUH" provide numbers. Since you're too lazy to, I will: * Bitcoin: 0.1% of all electricity in the world, 7tps. * THE ENTIRE REST OF HUMAN CIVILISATION, EVERYONE IN IT AND EVERYTHING THEY DO: 99.9% of electricity, a hell of a lot more than 6,993tps. Bitcoin is the most inefficient payment system in history. Bitcoiners' usual objection at this point is to claim that transactions per second is a bad measure, for some reason - though if you're comparing how much each system achieves for the resources it uses, it's precisely the obvious and correct measure. But if tps doesn't matter, then the entire bitcoin ecosystem should be replaced with a small rock. A whole country's less electricity use, and only 7tps less! Also, it'd be hard currency.
    - phaemon 6y ago
      > * Bitcoin: 0.1% of all electricity in the world, 7tps And? Who are you to tell anyone how they should use their electricity? Do you want my advice on what you should be doing in your home? > Bitcoin is the most inefficient payment system in history. I think the "hauling big rocks between islands" currency was probably less efficient, at least on a per capita basis. > then the entire bitcoin ecosystem should be replaced with a small rock Then go ahead and do that. If people have trust in your rock then that will work fine. You appear to have written two books about money. Do you not understand how it works yet?

A lot less per transaction than Bitcoin? But I'm no expert.

Much less? Bitcoin currently powers almost none of the world’s transactions, yet consumes all that energy. The entire us consumes 75 twh in a year, the same as bitcoin’s global energy use. Of that, the entire commercial sector is about 12 twh. That’s not just banks. That’s every company. Banks alone are surely far less. Maybe 2-3 twh? And the us is 15% of global gdp. So, global finance might consume about 14-32 twh. Again, that is while doing all of global finance. Bitcoin powers a rounding error of transactions yet consumes 75 twh. There’s just no comparison energy wise. My math could be off by several orders of magnitude and bitcoin would still consume more if it were actually powering the world’s transactions. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

blake1 6y ago
The US consumes about 4 PWh/year, so bitcoin isn't comparable with the nation as a whole. However, that is more power consumption than many individual states, so your overall point remains completely valid.
- graeme 6y ago
  Whoops yeah that should have been 9.4 quadrillion BTU. The online calculator I used for TWH conversion was very wrong. Looks like the correct value is about 2,000 twh for the us commercial sector? If we assume banks are 10% of that, then it’s 200 twh. 3x bitcoin. But also, handling literally all finance and banking in the US. Vs essentially nothing for bitcoin, compared to the scale of the us economy.
- matt-attack 6y ago
  Your units are funny. Using W-hr (energy) and then making it a rate by making it per year which gets you back to power. You could have just said, “the US consumes energy at a rate of 450 GW”. There’s no need to introduce hrs and years to the mix. Watts describe precisely what you’re attempting to quantify. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=4+PW+hr%2Fyear+in+GW&oq=4+PW+hr%2Fyear+in+GW https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=4+PW+hr%2Fyear+in+GW&o...
phaemon 6y ago
Your numbers are totally wrong. The fact your own link suggests that bitcoin uses as much electrical energy as Chile should tell you it's not close to the USA. Recheck?
biolurker1 6y ago
Bitcoin transacted way more money that PayPal etc
- graeme 6y ago
  People actually buy stuff on paypal. They processed 2.5 billion transactions in 2020. Bitcoin processed about 250 million transactions. The total amount of reported money transacted might be higher for bitcoin but that doesn’t come from contact with the real economy. So that depends on the valuation of bitcoin rather than economic impact. https://www.statista.com/statistics/277841/paypals-total-payment-volume/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277841/paypals-total-pay... https://www.statista.com/statistics/730806/daily-number-of-bitcoin-transactions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/730806/daily-number-of-b...
issamehh 6y ago
It'd be really nice if I could find a study on this, but just because bitcoin doesn't power the majority of the transactions doesn't mean it couldn't do so without the energy needs scaling linearly with transactions. If anything I'd imagine it could become more efficient as more transactions were taking place. I see people argue this a lot and I think it's too narrow of a view on the situation. Of course it'd be much better for us to adopt a crypto currency that uses a different algorithm that has even less energy usage. Even without that though I think it could prove to be more efficient than existing financial systems.

cool_dude85 6y ago

When confronted with relatively concrete studies on Bitcoin's wasteful energy use, are you going to point to the fact that physical money printer energy use has not been studied to muddy the waters? The reason it hasn't been studied is that it doesn't use a huge amount of electricity. Anyway, as another way of answering your question, physical money printing and transfers require no electricity at all, predating the invention of electric power by thousands of years.

syshum 6y ago
Pretty sure the modern machines that 1. Print the money 2. Harvest the Cotton and other raw materials 3. Transport the money 4. Secure the money (even in electronic form) 5. and about 100 other things All use "energy" the point of the OP's comment was about "wasted energy" which i would image is tied to climate change The idea that "printed money uses no energy because it is old tech" is just ignorant
- davidgerard 6y ago
  Zero bitcoiners going "BUT WHAT ABOUT CONVENTIONAL MONEY HUH" provide numbers. Since you're too lazy to, I will: * Bitcoin: 0.1% of all electricity in the world, 7tps. * THE ENTIRE REST OF HUMAN CIVILISATION, EVERYONE IN IT AND EVERYTHING THEY DO: 99.9% of electricity, a hell of a lot more than 6,993tps. Bitcoin is the most inefficient payment system in history. Bitcoiners' usual objection at this point is to claim that transactions per second is a bad measure, for some reason - though if you're comparing how much each system achieves for the resources it uses, it's precisely the obvious and correct measure. But if tps doesn't matter, then the entire bitcoin ecosystem should be replaced with a small rock. A whole country's less electricity use, and only 7tps less! Also, it'd be hard currency.
  - phaemon 6y ago
    > * Bitcoin: 0.1% of all electricity in the world, 7tps And? Who are you to tell anyone how they should use their electricity? Do you want my advice on what you should be doing in your home? > Bitcoin is the most inefficient payment system in history. I think the "hauling big rocks between islands" currency was probably less efficient, at least on a per capita basis. > then the entire bitcoin ecosystem should be replaced with a small rock Then go ahead and do that. If people have trust in your rock then that will work fine. You appear to have written two books about money. Do you not understand how it works yet?