4 ms·

Wonder how much the environmental cost of BTC transactions and mining offsets any positive "green points" from using an EV

diegocg 6y ago
About 1/3 apparently https://medium.com/crypto-lucid/buying-a-tesla-in-bitcoins-cancels-4-times-the-co2-savings-for-its-whole-lifetime-c28b042e3b9a https://medium.com/crypto-lucid/buying-a-tesla-in-bitcoins-c...
- gus_massa 6y ago
  The 1/3 assume that the bitcoins are never going to be used again, that is a very bad assumption. Let's be very conservative and assume they will be used once per year for the next 10 years, so instead of the 20+6=26 tons of CO2 you get 20/10+6=8 tons of CO2. (And you get a bigger reduction if you assume more more exchange velocity or that bitcoins will be around for more time.) Also, the 6 tons use the coefficient assume a 1% fee but with a $40,000 transaction, you don't have to pay a $400 fee. Probably $15, but let's be pessimistic and assume $40. So 20/10+6/10=2.6 tons of CO2, i.e. like 1/30 instead of 1/3. (Being more optimistic, I think it can be reduced to 20/100+6/30=.4 tons of CO2, i.e 1/200 of the savings.)
o_p 6y ago
The transaction energy cost to buy the car is tiny to even be considered. The trip to the dealership you make to buy your car with fiat money probably takes far more energy.
- iamgopal 6y ago
  Which is sadly not the case.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
delaaxe 6y ago
Bitcoin mining is good for the environment, that's why Tesla put $1b BTC on their balance sheet Edit: fine, downvote me but read this: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/axeldelamarre/files/master/Bitcoin%20Mining%20Is%20Good%20For%20The%20Environment%20-%20The%20Pomp%20Letter.pdf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/axeldelamarre/files/master...
- Redoubts 6y ago
  How so?
  - delaaxe 6y ago
    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/axeldelamarre/files/master/Bitcoin%20Mining%20Is%20Good%20For%20The%20Environment%20-%20The%20Pomp%20Letter.pdf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/axeldelamarre/files/master...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
anddddd1 6y ago
lol, what will the permabears come up with next
NoOneNew 6y ago
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption Per transaction, 792.37 kWh and 376 kg (828lbs) of CO2. That's about 27 days of electricity usage for an average US home. Or 62,000 hours of youtube video watching. Or 834,000 VISA transactions. It's fine. Not a big deal what so ever. Bitcoin is obviously the most efficient means of monetary transaction. No reason to question it.
- maxfurman 6y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing BTC is energy efficient. It intentionally isn't, by design. Now, whether the tradeoffs are worth it is another question entirely.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    If you're buying a vehicle to save the planet from unnecessary pollution, but use a payment that it unnecessarily polluting the environment... you... don't see a bit of a problem?
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > 792.37 kWh and 376 kg (828lbs) of CO2 Why does each transaction need to release CO2? Can they not run off renewables or nuclear?
  - bildung 6y ago
    That only makes other consumers consume the fossil-based energy instead, overall CO2 production would remain constant. This is zero sum unless renewable plants were explicitly installed for mining bitcoin.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Because the world has been failing, for decades, to move grids away from carbon and towards zero emission technologies. And there is no end in sight. If we could get all electricity generation to be zero emissions then climate change would be largely solved. And we'd be able to stop complain about btc. But until then...
thebean11 6y ago
Transactions have no marginal affect on energy usage. More mining does not produce more transactions. It's a really common misconception here.
- samvher 6y ago
  I may be suffering from this misconception so would be happy for you to explain more / share an explanation. Doesn’t more transactions mean more fees, so more incentive to mine?
  - thebean11 6y ago
    That's a really good point, more demand for the limited number of transaction space pushes up the tx price, incentivizing mining. Currently though, the majority of the block reward comes from inflation not transaction fees. With BTC price so high, it's likely that stopping transactions completely would not cause any miners to drop off as mining would still be profitable, which is why I say there's no marginal cost. In the future, fees will necessarily become the dominant compensation as the inflation rate decreases, so this will likely stop being true. This is pretty far off though, and it's not clear that the environmental issue will still exist either due to a change in mining or just wider use of renewables for mining.
jamesgreenleaf 6y ago
Hard to know for sure, but here's some inaccurate napkin-math: A single BTC transaction requires ~376kg of CO2. [1] Driving a Tesla emits ~91g CO2 per km. [2] Average distance driven in the US per year, per car is 13,476mi (21687.5km). [3] Driving your Tesla for a year emits ~1,973,562.5g of CO2, or 1,973.6kg. So, if you buy one with Bitcoin, you're emitting ~19% more CO2 for that year than you would with cash or credit. You could further amortize the amount over the lifetime of the car. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ [2] https://www.electrive.com/2020/08/31/study-currently-available-electric-cars-cause-less-co2-emissions-than-ices/ https://www.electrive.com/2020/08/31/study-currently-availab... [3] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
- NamTaf 6y ago
  Those numbers are absolutely, sickeningly staggering. 1 litre of petrol produces about 2.3 kg CO2. That means, a bitcoin transaction is the same as burning 163 litres of petrol. Absolutely insane. I decided to do some more numbers. It means that driving a Tesla for 25.31 km produces as much CO2 as burning 1 L of fuel from a CO2 equivalence point of view. Put differently, Teslas get 3.95 L per 100 km from a CO2 equivalence point of view. Compare that with, say, a Mazda 6 which apparently uses 9.8 L per 100 km from a very quick search. From a carbon emissions standpoint, Teslas are about 2.5x as efficient. Reasonable, to be sure, but not the order-of-magnitude difference I might have guessed if I had to take a stab in the dark.
  - bildung 6y ago
    The electrive article even cites a very optimistic study that assumes a high share of renewables to fill the Tesla. Other studies see quite more modest gains of EVs, e.g. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-over-ten-year-lifetime-of-an-average-mid-size-car-by-powertrain-2018 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-l... Edit: In contrast, the gains of public transit vs. individual car commutes are > 7x per km driven, before renewables: http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/infas_Vortrag_ifeuWorkshop.pdf http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/infas_Vortrag_if... , page 18 (German source, sorry, "Bus" == bus, "Bahn" == train)
throwaway4good 6y ago
Most bitcoins were mined into existence when bitcoin was much cheaper than it is today, and thus the energy spent mining was much smaller. Transaction cost is probably about 100-200 kilowatt hours.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Sorry my transaction cost in kwh is apparantly off by a factor of 5. Sorry. Another fun calculation. How many instructions can a modern piece of computing hardware do on 750 kilowatt hours? Just an indication of what an incredible beast bitcoin is.
BLanen 6y ago
Green points of EVs are negative compared to fossil fuel public transport even.
WinstonSmith84 6y ago
proof of work may be superseded at some point (e.g. by proof of stake). Not even mentioning the Lightning Network which is going to help a lot... Avoiding Bitcoin because we use coal to produce energy cannot be more wrong. The problem is that we produce energy with coal, not that Bitcoin uses energy to be mined. With such reasoning, then let's forget about smartphone, laptop, car, planes, house heating etc. and just go back straight to prehistory. Each of these things pollute the planet, let's not deny it. And if you think that BTC is not worth this energy waste to get rid off USD dominance (among others), then it's maybe you're an American enjoying USD dominance. That's of course a very biased view.
- graeme 6y ago
  It’s been six years since people started saying “the lightning network will solve this”

diegocg 6y ago

About 1/3 apparently https://medium.com/crypto-lucid/buying-a-tesla-in-bitcoins-cancels-4-times-the-co2-savings-for-its-whole-lifetime-c28b042e3b9a https://medium.com/crypto-lucid/buying-a-tesla-in-bitcoins-c...

gus_massa 6y ago
The 1/3 assume that the bitcoins are never going to be used again, that is a very bad assumption. Let's be very conservative and assume they will be used once per year for the next 10 years, so instead of the 20+6=26 tons of CO2 you get 20/10+6=8 tons of CO2. (And you get a bigger reduction if you assume more more exchange velocity or that bitcoins will be around for more time.) Also, the 6 tons use the coefficient assume a 1% fee but with a $40,000 transaction, you don't have to pay a $400 fee. Probably $15, but let's be pessimistic and assume $40. So 20/10+6/10=2.6 tons of CO2, i.e. like 1/30 instead of 1/3. (Being more optimistic, I think it can be reduced to 20/100+6/30=.4 tons of CO2, i.e 1/200 of the savings.)

o_p 6y ago

The transaction energy cost to buy the car is tiny to even be considered. The trip to the dealership you make to buy your car with fiat money probably takes far more energy.

iamgopal 6y ago
Which is sadly not the case.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

delaaxe 6y ago

Bitcoin mining is good for the environment, that's why Tesla put $1b BTC on their balance sheet Edit: fine, downvote me but read this: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/axeldelamarre/files/master/Bitcoin%20Mining%20Is%20Good%20For%20The%20Environment%20-%20The%20Pomp%20Letter.pdf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/axeldelamarre/files/master...

Redoubts 6y ago
How so?
- delaaxe 6y ago
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/axeldelamarre/files/master/Bitcoin%20Mining%20Is%20Good%20For%20The%20Environment%20-%20The%20Pomp%20Letter.pdf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/axeldelamarre/files/master...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

anddddd1 6y ago

lol, what will the permabears come up with next

NoOneNew 6y ago

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption Per transaction, 792.37 kWh and 376 kg (828lbs) of CO2. That's about 27 days of electricity usage for an average US home. Or 62,000 hours of youtube video watching. Or 834,000 VISA transactions. It's fine. Not a big deal what so ever. Bitcoin is obviously the most efficient means of monetary transaction. No reason to question it.

maxfurman 6y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing BTC is energy efficient. It intentionally isn't, by design. Now, whether the tradeoffs are worth it is another question entirely.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  If you're buying a vehicle to save the planet from unnecessary pollution, but use a payment that it unnecessarily polluting the environment... you... don't see a bit of a problem?
chrisseaton 6y ago
> 792.37 kWh and 376 kg (828lbs) of CO2 Why does each transaction need to release CO2? Can they not run off renewables or nuclear?
- bildung 6y ago
  That only makes other consumers consume the fossil-based energy instead, overall CO2 production would remain constant. This is zero sum unless renewable plants were explicitly installed for mining bitcoin.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  Because the world has been failing, for decades, to move grids away from carbon and towards zero emission technologies. And there is no end in sight. If we could get all electricity generation to be zero emissions then climate change would be largely solved. And we'd be able to stop complain about btc. But until then...

thebean11 6y ago

Transactions have no marginal affect on energy usage. More mining does not produce more transactions. It's a really common misconception here.

samvher 6y ago
I may be suffering from this misconception so would be happy for you to explain more / share an explanation. Doesn’t more transactions mean more fees, so more incentive to mine?
- thebean11 6y ago
  That's a really good point, more demand for the limited number of transaction space pushes up the tx price, incentivizing mining. Currently though, the majority of the block reward comes from inflation not transaction fees. With BTC price so high, it's likely that stopping transactions completely would not cause any miners to drop off as mining would still be profitable, which is why I say there's no marginal cost. In the future, fees will necessarily become the dominant compensation as the inflation rate decreases, so this will likely stop being true. This is pretty far off though, and it's not clear that the environmental issue will still exist either due to a change in mining or just wider use of renewables for mining.

jamesgreenleaf 6y ago

Hard to know for sure, but here's some inaccurate napkin-math: A single BTC transaction requires ~376kg of CO2. [1] Driving a Tesla emits ~91g CO2 per km. [2] Average distance driven in the US per year, per car is 13,476mi (21687.5km). [3] Driving your Tesla for a year emits ~1,973,562.5g of CO2, or 1,973.6kg. So, if you buy one with Bitcoin, you're emitting ~19% more CO2 for that year than you would with cash or credit. You could further amortize the amount over the lifetime of the car. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ [2] https://www.electrive.com/2020/08/31/study-currently-available-electric-cars-cause-less-co2-emissions-than-ices/ https://www.electrive.com/2020/08/31/study-currently-availab... [3] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

NamTaf 6y ago
Those numbers are absolutely, sickeningly staggering. 1 litre of petrol produces about 2.3 kg CO2. That means, a bitcoin transaction is the same as burning 163 litres of petrol. Absolutely insane. I decided to do some more numbers. It means that driving a Tesla for 25.31 km produces as much CO2 as burning 1 L of fuel from a CO2 equivalence point of view. Put differently, Teslas get 3.95 L per 100 km from a CO2 equivalence point of view. Compare that with, say, a Mazda 6 which apparently uses 9.8 L per 100 km from a very quick search. From a carbon emissions standpoint, Teslas are about 2.5x as efficient. Reasonable, to be sure, but not the order-of-magnitude difference I might have guessed if I had to take a stab in the dark.
- bildung 6y ago
  The electrive article even cites a very optimistic study that assumes a high share of renewables to fill the Tesla. Other studies see quite more modest gains of EVs, e.g. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-over-ten-year-lifetime-of-an-average-mid-size-car-by-powertrain-2018 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-l... Edit: In contrast, the gains of public transit vs. individual car commutes are > 7x per km driven, before renewables: http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/infas_Vortrag_ifeuWorkshop.pdf http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/infas_Vortrag_if... , page 18 (German source, sorry, "Bus" == bus, "Bahn" == train)

throwaway4good 6y ago

Most bitcoins were mined into existence when bitcoin was much cheaper than it is today, and thus the energy spent mining was much smaller. Transaction cost is probably about 100-200 kilowatt hours.

throwaway4good 6y ago
Sorry my transaction cost in kwh is apparantly off by a factor of 5. Sorry. Another fun calculation. How many instructions can a modern piece of computing hardware do on 750 kilowatt hours? Just an indication of what an incredible beast bitcoin is.

BLanen 6y ago

Green points of EVs are negative compared to fossil fuel public transport even.

WinstonSmith84 6y ago

proof of work may be superseded at some point (e.g. by proof of stake). Not even mentioning the Lightning Network which is going to help a lot... Avoiding Bitcoin because we use coal to produce energy cannot be more wrong. The problem is that we produce energy with coal, not that Bitcoin uses energy to be mined. With such reasoning, then let's forget about smartphone, laptop, car, planes, house heating etc. and just go back straight to prehistory. Each of these things pollute the planet, let's not deny it. And if you think that BTC is not worth this energy waste to get rid off USD dominance (among others), then it's maybe you're an American enjoying USD dominance. That's of course a very biased view.

graeme 6y ago
It’s been six years since people started saying “the lightning network will solve this”