4 ms·

While I am sympathetic with your argument, don’t forget you’re just comparing energy consumptions. We don’t know much about how its energy is being created. If

While I am sympathetic with your argument, don’t forget you’re just comparing energy consumptions. We don’t know much about how its energy is being created. If 90% of Bitcoin’s energy use would be from renewables its CO2 footprint wouldn’t be 45x as large as that of Google. There was a study a couple of years ago suggesting Bitcoin’s global footprint is comparable to that of a medium sized city. But its assumptions are probably outdated. Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435119302557 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...

DangitBobby 5y ago
That green energy would have been used by someone else if BTC didn't use it. Put another way, if there had been one energy customer, X, instead of BTC + X, and availability of green energy was X + BTC/2, then fuelling BTC required generation of non-renewable energy.
- G3rn0ti 5y ago
  That's not how markets work. Maybe on short term. If the demand for green energy is increasing due to Bitcoin, the production will also increase because it will drive profits of green energy producers.
  - shagie 5y ago
    > If the demand for green energy is increasing due to Bitcoin I would much rather that the demand for green energy increase due to a desire to transition away from other energy sources. If the demand for energy is increasing and being met with green energy without removing the other sources of energy, that's not entirely a win in my book.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    It's more complex than that, but it's pretty much how the energy market works. Saying BTC only spends a special kind of sanctioned energy is magical thinking. Why does BTC increase demand for green energy but not other kinds of energy? Or does it increase demand for all types of energy available in the grids in which it's generated?
shagie 5y ago
> If 90% of Bitcoin’s energy use would be from renewables its CO2 footprint wouldn’t be 45x as large as that of Google. Both Google (and Bitcoin) are optimizing for lower electrical costs - wherever that may be. Often this is associated with grids with hydroelectric power. Places like https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/the-dalles/ https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/the-dalle... The point isn't "this is how much CO2 google and bitcoin produce" but rather using the metric of CO2 footprint as a proxy for energy consumption to compare Bitcoin to Google to Facebook. Whatever Bitcoin's CO2 footprint is, overall Bitcoin is consuming about 45x more power than Google over the course of a year.

DangitBobby 5y ago

That green energy would have been used by someone else if BTC didn't use it. Put another way, if there had been one energy customer, X, instead of BTC + X, and availability of green energy was X + BTC/2, then fuelling BTC required generation of non-renewable energy.

G3rn0ti 5y ago
That's not how markets work. Maybe on short term. If the demand for green energy is increasing due to Bitcoin, the production will also increase because it will drive profits of green energy producers.
- shagie 5y ago
  > If the demand for green energy is increasing due to Bitcoin I would much rather that the demand for green energy increase due to a desire to transition away from other energy sources. If the demand for energy is increasing and being met with green energy without removing the other sources of energy, that's not entirely a win in my book.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  It's more complex than that, but it's pretty much how the energy market works. Saying BTC only spends a special kind of sanctioned energy is magical thinking. Why does BTC increase demand for green energy but not other kinds of energy? Or does it increase demand for all types of energy available in the grids in which it's generated?

shagie 5y ago

> If 90% of Bitcoin’s energy use would be from renewables its CO2 footprint wouldn’t be 45x as large as that of Google. Both Google (and Bitcoin) are optimizing for lower electrical costs - wherever that may be. Often this is associated with grids with hydroelectric power. Places like https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/the-dalles/ https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/the-dalle... The point isn't "this is how much CO2 google and bitcoin produce" but rather using the metric of CO2 footprint as a proxy for energy consumption to compare Bitcoin to Google to Facebook. Whatever Bitcoin's CO2 footprint is, overall Bitcoin is consuming about 45x more power than Google over the course of a year.