4 ms·

Bitcoin currently uses ~ 131 TWh electricty per year. [1] The world used ~ 176000 TWh of energy in 2021, now it's likely more. [2] Now let's say all the Bitco

by ephbit 3y ago

Bitcoin currently uses ~ 131 TWh electricty per year. [1] The world used ~ 176000 TWh of energy in 2021, now it's likely more. [2] Now let's say all the Bitcoin mining equipment (ASICS, ..) require another 50 % of the continuous electricity consumption of mining to be produced (random guess, no source), that'd be another: 65.5 TWh/a So according to this, Bitcoin uses less than: 196.5 / 176000 = 0.11 % of total worldwide energy consumption. According to this graph [3] the energy sector makes up 73 % of global greenhouse gas emissions. The three sectors beneath "energy" there being: a industry (coal/oil/gas), b transport (gasoline/diesel) and c buildings (heating oil/gas). All of these three mostly use fossil fuels as their energy inputs: coal, oil, gas, whereas bitcoin uses an electricity mix which has a non-negligible proportion of renewables in them. So Bitcoin's climate footprint should be significantly smaller than 0.08 % of global emissions. That's less than 1/1200. Now compare that to any of the stupid consumerism behavior we have in the rich parts of the world, where someone buys 100s of kgs of useless plastic crap each year, buys a stupidly over motorized pile of metal to drive around the block and show off, boosting their ego blowing exhaust into their fellow citizens' lungs and has a weekly barbecue session at their AC cooled suburban 1000s of sqft home. These uses of energy add up to 100s more emissions than Bitcoin. Sure, not everyone thinks Bitcoin is useful. But do I think all these stupid plastic collectors figures and all other plastic crap is useful? Hell no. And do I think that a Hummer or Landrover Defender or your standard US pickup truck is a useful/reasonable vehicle? Hell no. While Bitcoin makes just a tiny dent in global emissions, this other useless stuff makes not a tiny but a huge dent in emissions. You can criticise Bitcoin all you want for this and that, but if you're honestly trying to make a point and suggest where emissions can be reduced to help the climate and you then point to Bitcoin .. then you're obviously either falling for anti Bitcoin narratives or your thinking doesn't work all that well. [1] https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
0.11% or even 0.08% of total worldwide energy consumption is a fucking shit ton of energy. You could also compare it to the sun's energy output to make the percentage even smaller looking, but the energy size is still huge. The metric to compare bitcoin to is energy per transaction compared with EXISTING forms of digital finance with which it is competing. The argument that "bitcoin may be bad energy-wise but are other things are too, so therefore don't worry about" it is a bad one. It's like saying, "sure child abuse is bad, but war causes way more suffering and there are still wars so no need to do anything about child abuse, at least until all war everywhere stops first. Oh and if you do try and stop child abuse while war exists then you are a hypocrite.". Bad premise, bad logic.
- ephbit 3y ago
  > 0.11% or even 0.08% of total worldwide energy consumption is a fucking shit ton of energy. Completely irrelevant. Because other uses of energy (that me and lots of other people consider wasted or even harmful) are orders of magnitude larger and thus harmful than Bitcoin's. Either you accept that not every person on the planet agrees upon which uses of energy are useful to them individually. Or you're basically saying "my opinion on which energy uses are legit and which aren't is the only one that matters", at which point we can stop discussing altogether because I don't really care about "discussing" with people who have this standpoint.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    > Either you accept that not every person on the planet agrees upon which uses of energy are useful to them individually. Or you're basically saying "my opinion on which energy uses are legit and which aren't is the only one that matter" Those are the only two options? How about the one where I agree with you that there are other massively wasteful energy activities out there but that fact is not an argument for tolerating them or allowing for more. Bitcoin is crazy wasteful compared with other financial tools which can do the same thing. You seem to be saying that because some people can drive giant trucks when really all they need is a small car or better yet take public transport, that you should be able (and without any criticism) be able to burn a mountain of energy to get a transfer added to a public ledger. You are both being wasteful and its not ok!
    - ephbit 3y ago
      > How about the one where I agree with you that there are other massively wasteful energy activities out there but that fact is not an argument for tolerating them or allowing for more. If you care so much about having less harm done to the ecosphere then why are you currently debating about "tiny slice of greenhouse gases" (Bitcoin) that other people arguably find very useful, instead of focusing on the "bigger portion of the emissions pie" (perpetual consumption of unnecessary new stuff in the post-modern consumerist society)? I have a hard time believing you care more about the environment than about trying to blow the supposed evilness of Bitcoin out of proportion. > Bitcoin is crazy wasteful compared with other financial tools which can do the same thing. Good, which are these? The one financial tool that somewhat comes close is gold, and because the latter implies orders of magnitude slower transfers than Bitcoin and because it's harder to secure and comes with a few more downsides on top it's still far from "same thing".

by ephbit 3y ago

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago

0.11% or even 0.08% of total worldwide energy consumption is a fucking shit ton of energy. You could also compare it to the sun's energy output to make the percentage even smaller looking, but the energy size is still huge. The metric to compare bitcoin to is energy per transaction compared with EXISTING forms of digital finance with which it is competing. The argument that "bitcoin may be bad energy-wise but are other things are too, so therefore don't worry about" it is a bad one. It's like saying, "sure child abuse is bad, but war causes way more suffering and there are still wars so no need to do anything about child abuse, at least until all war everywhere stops first. Oh and if you do try and stop child abuse while war exists then you are a hypocrite.". Bad premise, bad logic.

ephbit 3y ago
> 0.11% or even 0.08% of total worldwide energy consumption is a fucking shit ton of energy. Completely irrelevant. Because other uses of energy (that me and lots of other people consider wasted or even harmful) are orders of magnitude larger and thus harmful than Bitcoin's. Either you accept that not every person on the planet agrees upon which uses of energy are useful to them individually. Or you're basically saying "my opinion on which energy uses are legit and which aren't is the only one that matters", at which point we can stop discussing altogether because I don't really care about "discussing" with people who have this standpoint.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  > Either you accept that not every person on the planet agrees upon which uses of energy are useful to them individually. Or you're basically saying "my opinion on which energy uses are legit and which aren't is the only one that matter" Those are the only two options? How about the one where I agree with you that there are other massively wasteful energy activities out there but that fact is not an argument for tolerating them or allowing for more. Bitcoin is crazy wasteful compared with other financial tools which can do the same thing. You seem to be saying that because some people can drive giant trucks when really all they need is a small car or better yet take public transport, that you should be able (and without any criticism) be able to burn a mountain of energy to get a transfer added to a public ledger. You are both being wasteful and its not ok!
  - ephbit 3y ago
    > How about the one where I agree with you that there are other massively wasteful energy activities out there but that fact is not an argument for tolerating them or allowing for more. If you care so much about having less harm done to the ecosphere then why are you currently debating about "tiny slice of greenhouse gases" (Bitcoin) that other people arguably find very useful, instead of focusing on the "bigger portion of the emissions pie" (perpetual consumption of unnecessary new stuff in the post-modern consumerist society)? I have a hard time believing you care more about the environment than about trying to blow the supposed evilness of Bitcoin out of proportion. > Bitcoin is crazy wasteful compared with other financial tools which can do the same thing. Good, which are these? The one financial tool that somewhat comes close is gold, and because the latter implies orders of magnitude slower transfers than Bitcoin and because it's harder to secure and comes with a few more downsides on top it's still far from "same thing".