5 ms·

Energy use is not energy source. There's been no full accounting of the carbon footprint of bitcoin mining, only its use. Much of it is done using geothermal or

Energy use is not energy source. There's been no full accounting of the carbon footprint of bitcoin mining, only its use. Much of it is done using geothermal or other renewable sources. (edit, incorrect) That El Salvador is adopting it refutes your second claim. Then there's the lightning network which increases the transaction throughput. Everything is going to be okay.

okl 5y ago
Here are some estimates: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption Do you think they are wrong? By how much?
edgefield 5y ago
Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in its current form is environmental lunacy. I don't know what problem digital currency solves when the planet can no longer sustain human life due to climate change.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global emissions. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... I struggle to find hand wringing about bitcoin's energy consumption as anything but naive or sour grapes. Society is never going to voluntarily reverse total energy consumption. Either price bitcoin mining out of the market, or focus on voting with your wallet and regulating carbon emissions at the energy production level. Arguing about how people should spend their money on energy is a waste of political energy. Millions of people believe that bitcoin is worth the energy costs. "Too much" energy usage is entirely subjective.
thomastjeffery 5y ago
Using renewable energy still takes that opportunity away from other users who end up stuck with X% of their energy use provided by non-renewables, so the real carbon footprint is still similar.
- thebean11 5y ago
  Not necessarily. That would only be true if storing and/or transporting energy was cheap or easy.
  - thomastjeffery 5y ago
    Yes, that is a factor. Other factors include abandoned coal fire plants being restarted for mining. The question is not if there is a factor that is positive, but whether the positives outweigh the negatives. Every source I have seen is confident they do not.
    - thebean11 5y ago
      That's a pretty different claim from the one I replied to, but yes I agree additional consumption of fossil fuels is an important factor. The claim that consumption of renewable energy is equivalent to consumption of fossil fuels, because that renewable energy would have otherwise offset fossil fuel consumption I don't agree with though.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      Maybe we should focus regulations on coal fire plants instead of cryptocurrency?
      - thomastjeffery 5y ago
        We can and should focus on both.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  > Using renewable energy still takes that opportunity away from other users […] This would be true only if electrical capacity were completely inelastic. It is not. Electrical capacity is relatively slow to respond to changes in demand, sure, but it does respond. Consider the scale of the increase in electrical capacity that will be needed to fully move the US alone to EVs. That change will not have a hard cost cap, either - people are willing to pay quite a bit to operate their automobiles, and the current cost to operate an EV is substantially less than the cost of operating a similar ICE vehicle. Bitcoin mining does have a hard cost cap: ([Bitcoin price] * 6.25 + [Bitcoin price] * [~10 minutes of transaction fees]). In about 2024, that 6.25 will drop to 3.125. Ultimately Bitcoin mining is driven by economic forces, and those same forces are the same that control the scale of power generation worldwide. You can see Bitcoin’s energy use as being used only to secure the network; I see it as securing the network and driving incentives for the development and expansion of electrical infrastructure.
Ancapistani 5y ago
> Energy use is not energy source I’ll go a step further - Bitcoin’s energy use is centralized around the cheapest sources due to economic forces. If renewables are cheaper at scale than fossil fuels, Bitcoin’s energy use could in fact become a net positive for the world. To put it another way, the profitability of mining is directly proportional to the cost of electricity compared to the global average. This should drive the development of less expensive forms of energy over time. Even if fossil fuels are cheapest today (and I’m not certain that’s true), there is an ongoing cost floor due to it relying upon extraction, processing, transportation, and burning. Solar, for example, has a higher capital cost but presumably a lower ongoing $/kWh. Finally, ~5% (2.2-13.3%) of electricity generated in the US is lost due to transmission from the point of generation to the point of consumption. India loses 20-30%. [0] Bitcoin mining, given its high power consumption, should specifically drive decentralized power generation. This in turn could help make such technology available for other uses, resulting in a less centralized, more robust power grid. 0: http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-... 1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=23452 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=23452
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
  Using renewables to do something that doesn't need to be done is not a win. I divested from all PoW coins except ETH in expectation that PoS will be completed soon.
  - Ancapistani 5y ago
    > Using renewables to do something that doesn't need to be done is not a win. It is if it spurs development of the underlying tech. Pornography isn’t necessary, but because it was consumed in volume we ended up with ubiquitous household VCRs in the 80s and 90s.
    - lottin 5y ago
      > It is if it spurs development of the underlying tech. How does that work? For example, if leave a lightbulb on all day long, does that spur adoption or development of renewable energy sources?

okl 5y ago

Here are some estimates: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption Do you think they are wrong? By how much?

edgefield 5y ago

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in its current form is environmental lunacy. I don't know what problem digital currency solves when the planet can no longer sustain human life due to climate change.

cwkoss 5y ago
100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global emissions. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... I struggle to find hand wringing about bitcoin's energy consumption as anything but naive or sour grapes. Society is never going to voluntarily reverse total energy consumption. Either price bitcoin mining out of the market, or focus on voting with your wallet and regulating carbon emissions at the energy production level. Arguing about how people should spend their money on energy is a waste of political energy. Millions of people believe that bitcoin is worth the energy costs. "Too much" energy usage is entirely subjective.

thomastjeffery 5y ago

Using renewable energy still takes that opportunity away from other users who end up stuck with X% of their energy use provided by non-renewables, so the real carbon footprint is still similar.

thebean11 5y ago
Not necessarily. That would only be true if storing and/or transporting energy was cheap or easy.
- thomastjeffery 5y ago
  Yes, that is a factor. Other factors include abandoned coal fire plants being restarted for mining. The question is not if there is a factor that is positive, but whether the positives outweigh the negatives. Every source I have seen is confident they do not.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    That's a pretty different claim from the one I replied to, but yes I agree additional consumption of fossil fuels is an important factor. The claim that consumption of renewable energy is equivalent to consumption of fossil fuels, because that renewable energy would have otherwise offset fossil fuel consumption I don't agree with though.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Maybe we should focus regulations on coal fire plants instead of cryptocurrency?
    - thomastjeffery 5y ago
      We can and should focus on both.
Ancapistani 5y ago
> Using renewable energy still takes that opportunity away from other users […] This would be true only if electrical capacity were completely inelastic. It is not. Electrical capacity is relatively slow to respond to changes in demand, sure, but it does respond. Consider the scale of the increase in electrical capacity that will be needed to fully move the US alone to EVs. That change will not have a hard cost cap, either - people are willing to pay quite a bit to operate their automobiles, and the current cost to operate an EV is substantially less than the cost of operating a similar ICE vehicle. Bitcoin mining does have a hard cost cap: ([Bitcoin price] * 6.25 + [Bitcoin price] * [~10 minutes of transaction fees]). In about 2024, that 6.25 will drop to 3.125. Ultimately Bitcoin mining is driven by economic forces, and those same forces are the same that control the scale of power generation worldwide. You can see Bitcoin’s energy use as being used only to secure the network; I see it as securing the network and driving incentives for the development and expansion of electrical infrastructure.

Ancapistani 5y ago

> Energy use is not energy source I’ll go a step further - Bitcoin’s energy use is centralized around the cheapest sources due to economic forces. If renewables are cheaper at scale than fossil fuels, Bitcoin’s energy use could in fact become a net positive for the world. To put it another way, the profitability of mining is directly proportional to the cost of electricity compared to the global average. This should drive the development of less expensive forms of energy over time. Even if fossil fuels are cheapest today (and I’m not certain that’s true), there is an ongoing cost floor due to it relying upon extraction, processing, transportation, and burning. Solar, for example, has a higher capital cost but presumably a lower ongoing $/kWh. Finally, ~5% (2.2-13.3%) of electricity generated in the US is lost due to transmission from the point of generation to the point of consumption. India loses 20-30%. [0] Bitcoin mining, given its high power consumption, should specifically drive decentralized power generation. This in turn could help make such technology available for other uses, resulting in a less centralized, more robust power grid. 0: http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-... 1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=23452 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=23452

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
Using renewables to do something that doesn't need to be done is not a win. I divested from all PoW coins except ETH in expectation that PoS will be completed soon.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  > Using renewables to do something that doesn't need to be done is not a win. It is if it spurs development of the underlying tech. Pornography isn’t necessary, but because it was consumed in volume we ended up with ubiquitous household VCRs in the 80s and 90s.
  - lottin 5y ago
    > It is if it spurs development of the underlying tech. How does that work? For example, if leave a lightbulb on all day long, does that spur adoption or development of renewable energy sources?