[2014-04-07] What is the Carbon Footprint of a Bitcoin? - page 2.

lynn_402

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 253

Quote from: jbrnt on April 07, 2014, 05:34:58 PM

However misleading the calculations are, it is undeniable that crypto mining is using a LOT of electricity and is not enviromentally friendly. I am not saying everyone should stop mining, but asic manufacturers should do more about power efficiency. Embarrassed

If they were more power-efficient, it would be more profitable so more people would mine, the result is the same Tongue

It might be even worse because of the increase in mining-machines production.

But have you read the other posts in this thread? There's plenty of arguments why it's not so bad. There's no way to make a currency, or anything that matters, without energy. Bitcoin's amount of pollution is worth it.

Perhaps we should all plant a tree for every coin we have? It would more than compensate

http://www.treesforthefuture.org/donate/
It only costs 0.10$ each. I'll send them an e-mail so they'll consider accepting donations in BTC.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: jbrnt on April 07, 2014, 05:34:58 PM

However misleading the calculations are, it is undeniable that crypto mining is using a LOT of electricity and is not enviromentally friendly. I am not saying everyone should stop mining, but asic manufacturers should do more about power efficiency. Embarrassed

... it is not a LOT of energy, e.g. global energy usage is at approx. 16 TeraWatts. [10^12] (I'll let you demonstrate the math that btc mining consumption is in fact a "LOT")

A large proportion of electricity used by miners will be nuclear, hydro and geothermal, so zero "carbon footprints" observable (which itself is a BS pseduo-scientific cult mystery unit).

jbrnt

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

However misleading the calculations are, it is undeniable that crypto mining is using a LOT of electricity and is not enviromentally friendly. I am not saying everyone should stop mining, but asic manufacturers should do more about power efficiency. Embarrassed

bitbouillion

sr. member

Activity: 868

Merit: 250

Quote from: lynn_402 on April 07, 2014, 10:22:39 AM

http://www.coindesk.com/carbon-footprint-bitcoin/

Mw/h - never heard of such a unit for electric energy.

It's:
Wh or kWh or MWh or GWh ...

lynn_402

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 253

Quote from: ArticMine on April 07, 2014, 12:33:19 PM

This question ignores a very important issue namely what exactly happens to the heat produced by Bitcoin mining. If one mines Bitcoin where there is a need for space heating, with most parts of Canada during the winter being an extreme case, then the carbon impact may in fact be negligible if at all since the Bitcoin mining is displacing another source of carbon emissions that would have been used to provide the space heating. At the other extreme if one mines Bitcoin in say parts of Africa then the carbon emissions will be magnified by the need to cool the mining equipment. The net impact of this is that "proof of work" may end up becoming "proof of cold" as Bitcoin mining will by the forces of economics migrate to where the heat produced is actually a valuable commodity rather than a waste product.

The net result of this is that a Bitcoin transaction in January in say Melbourne would be sent via fibre optic cables to Winnipeg for processing. The reverse situation would occur in say July.

That's quite right!
Another argument: anything that removes power from governments can only be good for the protection of environment (less war, less wasteful spending, less subventions to obsolete and wasteful technologies in order to preserve jobs, etc.)

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

This question ignores a very important issue namely what exactly happens to the heat produced by Bitcoin mining. If one mines Bitcoin where there is a need for space heating, with most parts of Canada during the winter being an extreme case, then the carbon impact may in fact be negligible if at all since the Bitcoin mining is displacing another source of carbon emissions that would have been used to provide the space heating. At the other extreme if one mines Bitcoin in say parts of Africa then the carbon emissions will be magnified by the need to cool the mining equipment. The net impact of this is that "proof of work" may end up becoming "proof of cold" as Bitcoin mining will by the forces of economics migrate to where the heat produced is actually a valuable commodity rather than a waste product.

The net result of this is that a Bitcoin transaction in January in say Melbourne would be sent via fibre optic cables to Winnipeg for processing. The reverse situation would occur in say July.

lynn_402

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 253

Quote from: DannyHamilton on April 07, 2014, 11:48:15 AM

This is very misleading.

How do you determine how much of the mining is used to "create" new bitcoins, and how much of it is used to process and secure transactions?

Personally, I'd say that the creation of the new bitcoins uses 0 energy and results in 0 lbs of carbon dioxide. It's the intensive processing and securing of a fast, global, irreversible, secure payment system that is creating the carbon dioxide and using the energy. Now, divide the total carbon dioxide by the number of satoshis moved in a day and see how much is created per transacted satoshi.

After the year 2140, when mining continues at a significant pace, and 0 new bitcoins are being created, how exactly are they going to divide by zero to get the pollution per new bitcoin?

Indeed it is somewhat misleading, but the main issue with this is that 312lbs of CO2 * 3600 new BTC is produced everyday by miners, and it is increasing by about 20%/2 weeks (though that rate won't sustain itself much longer, especially if the current price stays stable).

I do agree that it is worth it to maintain this efficient system, and like I said, it is and probably always will be more energy-efficient than the current financial system.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: lynn_402 on April 07, 2014, 10:22:39 AM

http://www.coindesk.com/carbon-footprint-bitcoin/

While the figures seem somewhat scary at first (312lbs of carbon dioxide into the air per coin, equivalent of 15.9 gallons of gazoline burnt), it's most probably way less than what is required for the maintenance of fiat currencies: energy used by banks and ATM, building and fueling armored cars, printing money, powering the myriad of computers used to make the money virtual, etc.

Besides, it can be argued that fiat currencies, because of inflation, favours mass consumption, while deflatory currencies like Bitcoin favour savings. This alone definitely overcompensates for the carbon footprint of the network.

Also, since competition is fierce, miners who use cheap, renewable energy (ie. solar) will ultimately be at a great advantage.

This is very misleading.

How do you determine how much of the mining is used to "create" new bitcoins, and how much of it is used to process and secure transactions?

Personally, I'd say that the creation of the new bitcoins uses 0 energy and results in 0 lbs of carbon dioxide. It's the intensive processing and securing of a fast, global, irreversible, secure payment system that is creating the carbon dioxide and using the energy. Now, divide the total carbon dioxide by the number of satoshis moved in a day and see how much is created per transacted satoshi.

After the year 2140, when mining continues at a significant pace, and 0 new bitcoins are being created, how exactly are they going to divide by zero to get the pollution per new bitcoin?

lynn_402

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 253

http://www.coindesk.com/carbon-footprint-bitcoin/

While the figures seem somewhat scary at first (312lbs of carbon dioxide into the air per coin, equivalent of 15.9 gallons of gazoline burnt), it's most probably way less than what is required for the maintenance of fiat currencies: energy used by banks and ATM, building and fueling armored cars, printing money, powering the myriad of computers used to make the money virtual, etc.

Besides, it can be argued that fiat currencies, because of inflation, favours mass consumption, while deflatory currencies like Bitcoin favour savings. This alone definitely overcompensates for the carbon footprint of the network.

Also, since competition is fierce, miners who use cheap, renewable energy (ie. solar) will ultimately be at a great advantage.

Topic: [2014-04-07] What is the Carbon Footprint of a Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 1607 times)