I feel compelled to reframe the argument as "is energy consumption really that bad for the environment?" to which the answer is yes. Bitcoin is an idealist revolution and hopefully worth the sacrifice.
I wonder if those World Bank numbers took into account the creation of physical currency, or if that was even considered as a part of the environmental impact during their study. I imagine it is a resource and energy intensive process, getting those metals out of the ground and pressed into the change we find in our pocket. And paper/plastic bills too, those can't be easy to print either.
But on the flip side, what about the materials/energy involved in making the machines that validate transactions? I mean sure you get an end product that is more useful, but most of the devices found in mining facilities aren't used for anything else. It's not like running Nicehash on your 1070ti on your old rig while you surf Writer.io casually on the side (who does that).
The only detailed calculation of the traditional banking system, which I based the numbers on, definitely did not take into account the energy expenditure for mining metals, coin minting machinery, or getting the resource and running the printing machines for making bills. Basically, they only factored in running servers, branch offices and ATMs. If they factored in everything, I'm pretty sure the energy expenditure would be more than twice the amount mentioned.
That's awesome you went back and checked, thanks! I've learned many studies don't include the cradle to grave impacts because of the complexities it adds so I'm not surprised it was outside the scope for that paper. I agree with you there though, it would definitely be multiple times greater than the given total.
I like the way the author makes comparisons compared to other articles I have read. I am still skeptical as to how many mining operations use renewable energy. The statistics are 40% of people surveyed who run a legal mining operation? I feel as though there are many mining operations using stolen electricity etc and staying anonymous for obvious reasons.
While the comparisons like BTC vs the worlds banking system make BTC seem much more efficient, just imagine how much more efficient a different cryptocurrency could be.
Thanks for the comment. I agree. But use of renewable energy calculations could be very accurate for some regions and way off for others. Venezuela, for example, has quite a few big mining farms (some are even run by the government). Every single one of them is running on hydroelectric power, because that's basically all we have. All our coal and gas-based thermoelectric power plants have been inoperative for decades. I'm confident the numbers given for Latin America (76% renewable) are pretty much accurate. For other regions, I'm not so sure.
I also agree cryptocurrency could be way more efficient. XRP, EOS and other chains are much greener. But the point I was making here is that Bitcoin isn't quite as bad as some people think.
I think we all know that Bitcoin really requires a fucking lot of energy to work, but the good think is that little by little were thinking and working in changing this so this becomes more eco friendly.
Some people would believe in Elon Words Blindly and they just don't do research cause they have a mindset if he said it then it must be right
Time to change everyone
We will try to decrease the consumption but seeing the Consumption by Banks we can say that we are not the only one who have to bring changes bank's should too
I feel compelled to reframe the argument as "is energy consumption really that bad for the environment?" to which the answer is yes. Bitcoin is an idealist revolution and hopefully worth the sacrifice.
I wonder if those World Bank numbers took into account the creation of physical currency, or if that was even considered as a part of the environmental impact during their study. I imagine it is a resource and energy intensive process, getting those metals out of the ground and pressed into the change we find in our pocket. And paper/plastic bills too, those can't be easy to print either.
But on the flip side, what about the materials/energy involved in making the machines that validate transactions? I mean sure you get an end product that is more useful, but most of the devices found in mining facilities aren't used for anything else. It's not like running Nicehash on your 1070ti on your old rig while you surf Writer.io casually on the side (who does that).
The only detailed calculation of the traditional banking system, which I based the numbers on, definitely did not take into account the energy expenditure for mining metals, coin minting machinery, or getting the resource and running the printing machines for making bills. Basically, they only factored in running servers, branch offices and ATMs. If they factored in everything, I'm pretty sure the energy expenditure would be more than twice the amount mentioned.
That's awesome you went back and checked, thanks! I've learned many studies don't include the cradle to grave impacts because of the complexities it adds so I'm not surprised it was outside the scope for that paper. I agree with you there though, it would definitely be multiple times greater than the given total.
I like the way the author makes comparisons compared to other articles I have read. I am still skeptical as to how many mining operations use renewable energy. The statistics are 40% of people surveyed who run a legal mining operation? I feel as though there are many mining operations using stolen electricity etc and staying anonymous for obvious reasons.
While the comparisons like BTC vs the worlds banking system make BTC seem much more efficient, just imagine how much more efficient a different cryptocurrency could be.
Electricity consumed per transaction (kWh)
BTC - 118
ETH - 20.294
VISA - 0.00649
XRP - 0.0000113
Thanks for the comment. I agree. But use of renewable energy calculations could be very accurate for some regions and way off for others. Venezuela, for example, has quite a few big mining farms (some are even run by the government). Every single one of them is running on hydroelectric power, because that's basically all we have. All our coal and gas-based thermoelectric power plants have been inoperative for decades. I'm confident the numbers given for Latin America (76% renewable) are pretty much accurate. For other regions, I'm not so sure.
I also agree cryptocurrency could be way more efficient. XRP, EOS and other chains are much greener. But the point I was making here is that Bitcoin isn't quite as bad as some people think.
It's always interesting to compare the things people complain about with cryptocurrency to what they are currently using ...
Alas, people seem to just not like change .. and believe everything the media says....
I think we all know that Bitcoin really requires a fucking lot of energy to work, but the good think is that little by little were thinking and working in changing this so this becomes more eco friendly.
Some people would believe in Elon Words Blindly and they just don't do research cause they have a mindset if he said it then it must be right
Time to change everyone
We will try to decrease the consumption but seeing the Consumption by Banks we can say that we are not the only one who have to bring changes bank's should too
Proof-of-Stake is also a better on ramp for new people who can't mine the old fashion way.
To me there's more going on behind the BTC power consumption debate. I don't buy Elon's BS.
By consensus, Bitcoin miners should immediately bring the use of renewable energy to at least 70 percent.
On the one hand, wanting to make the world a just place for all people, on the other hand, being harmful to it is a contradiction.
Of course, the banking system and the economy formed around it consume energy much worse and heavily.
It should not be thought of only as banks and ATMs.
There are many other factors, large and small.
For the simplest example, the fuel of the car used by a bank employee to go to the bank where he works is also considered an energy consumption.
Although the example is not very accurate, I hope I can explain what I am trying to explain.
We need to make bitcoin more environmentally friendly, period.
thank you for the great article