9 ms·

Sorry, but 0.1% of global energy consumption still adds up to a lot of coal power plants.

errantmind 5y ago
This appears to be a semantic deflection. Are you arguing that less than 0.1% of the world's energy consumption equates to a "massive environmental impact"?
- hectormalot 5y ago
  If we want to put it this way, yes. 140TWh out of 170000TWh is about 0.8%. relative impact is bigger than 0.08%. Coal is 36% of the power mix. Under the assumption that most bitcoin mining happens connected to the grid (seems reasonable) and that these grids contain coal powerplants (also reasonable with the exception of Iceland), that 0.08% translates to 0.22% of global coal based emissions. On a global scale, being responsible for 1/500th is a lot (for me at least) the numbers are more relatable when looking at absolute impact. Assuming a average coal power plant of 600MW (you can find bigger, but this is a representative plant near me[1]). That’s 5TWh/yr per plant. Bitcoin then represents 28 of such coal powerplants running at 100% capacity 24/7. That - to me - seems like a massive amount of CO2 for a niche application. And if I read your source correctly, that’s just bitcoin 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amercentrale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amercentrale Coal is about 36%
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  The reason why the argument that it is only using 0.1% of the worlds energy consumption so it doesn't matter is a stupid argument is because it can be used about absolutely everything. This particular coal plant only emits a 0.01% of all greenhouse gas emissions, so it doesn't matter. That is true about that coal plant too, and that one. So just leave them all because no single coal plant matters in the whole.
chaxor 5y ago
Btc still uses far less energy than the banking industry. The relevant comparisons are important to consider.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- oblio 5y ago
  The banking industry does 10000 times more things for billions more people.
tamaharbor 5y ago
I wonder how much energy is consumed via social networking on Facebook, Twitter, HN, etc?

This appears to be a semantic deflection. Are you arguing that less than 0.1% of the world's energy consumption equates to a "massive environmental impact"?

hectormalot 5y ago
If we want to put it this way, yes. 140TWh out of 170000TWh is about 0.8%. relative impact is bigger than 0.08%. Coal is 36% of the power mix. Under the assumption that most bitcoin mining happens connected to the grid (seems reasonable) and that these grids contain coal powerplants (also reasonable with the exception of Iceland), that 0.08% translates to 0.22% of global coal based emissions. On a global scale, being responsible for 1/500th is a lot (for me at least) the numbers are more relatable when looking at absolute impact. Assuming a average coal power plant of 600MW (you can find bigger, but this is a representative plant near me[1]). That’s 5TWh/yr per plant. Bitcoin then represents 28 of such coal powerplants running at 100% capacity 24/7. That - to me - seems like a massive amount of CO2 for a niche application. And if I read your source correctly, that’s just bitcoin 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amercentrale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amercentrale Coal is about 36%
Ma8ee 5y ago
The reason why the argument that it is only using 0.1% of the worlds energy consumption so it doesn't matter is a stupid argument is because it can be used about absolutely everything. This particular coal plant only emits a 0.01% of all greenhouse gas emissions, so it doesn't matter. That is true about that coal plant too, and that one. So just leave them all because no single coal plant matters in the whole.

chaxor 5y ago

Btc still uses far less energy than the banking industry. The relevant comparisons are important to consider.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
oblio 5y ago
The banking industry does 10000 times more things for billions more people.

tamaharbor 5y ago

I wonder how much energy is consumed via social networking on Facebook, Twitter, HN, etc?