Topic: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Myths (Read 338 times)

Their overall power calculations are indeed pretty accurate.
In fact, anyone could approximate the electricity consumption simply by taking the hashrate, dividing by the most efficient gear that exists, and multiplying the number of gears required by their consumption, then you have the minimum, there is no way to go below those unless we go into conspiracy theories about entities using far more efficient gear or manipulating the algorithm.

But the consumption per transaction is wrong because there is no real accurate model to calculate this.
The simple way is to grab the power consumption and split it into the number of transactions but what happens when we have variables like the last week as onn the 3rd we had only  220k, on the 6th 330k, but the power consumption didn't go 50% up.
The second problem is the transaction itself, you can have one transaction with 60 outputs, which means 60 people received their payments, you can have one transaction in which you only pay for yourself, and you can have a transaction with 100 inputs, larger than both in which you just consolidate your dust.

And it doesn't stop here, there is the empty block problem and there is of course the LN network which is never taken into consideration.

I looked for more information about BitcoinEnergy Consumption and I found website called digiconomist.
There are many critics who say this calculations are wrong, and should be researched more.

According to this website, single Bitcoin transaction footprint is:

Carbon Footprint: 360.38 kgCO2 (equal to 798,733 VISA transactions or 60,064 hours of watching Youtube)
Electrical Energy: 758.70 kWh  (power consumption of an average US household over 26 days.)
Electronic Waste: 100.70 grams (weight of 1.55 C-size batteries or 2.19 golf balls.)

Annualized Total Footprints:

Carbon Footprint: 36.95 Mt CO2 (equal to carbon footprint of New Zealand.)
Electrical Energy: 77.78 TWh  (power consumption of Chile.)
Electronic Waste: 10.32 kt ( e-waste of Luxembourg.)


https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Sulfides are usually taken out before the burning process, they are flammable but sulfur is also highly corrosive.
Second, human and animal shit is not infinite, it would be infinite if you would have infinite humans and infinite food to feed them all, and we don't have the second one for the current population. Besides that, when people usually refer to cattle waste they compare it to release from human activity forgetting that in whose cases it's a small percentage that is being released while a huge chunk is used, all the 1 billion cattle in the world, even if they would release pure methane into the atmosphere which is not the case wouldn't make a dent in Russia's market share let alone worldwide.


Yeah, the problem is that dam also would need an infinite resource, which is not water, it's places to put them and the one reason why Netherlands produces only 0.1% of it's total energy from dams, and the reason why 4 countries in the world produce 50% of the global hydropower.

No, bottom line! electric energy is not an infinite resource and will never be free, just as tap water isn't!
With the current spike in BTC price it will be pretty interesting to look at the mining consumption, bitcoin price doubles, so does the amount miners get.
When it goes 10x....things will go interesting, we won't be talking about Switzerland but Germany.

When saying that bitcoin is energy you are not mistaking from you perspective but I don't really understand what the concept is all about, I want to comprehend these text, because its complicated for my understanding, if you are emphasising on bitcoin or bitcoin valid on society, I need clarification.

It is infinite if we assume that human and animal waste is infinite. As long as you have shit, you'll have methane and hydrogen sulfide. Both flammable and combustible.


What I mean is that it can be produced without any byproducts like CO2 and nuclear waste. Once you make dam on a river it can keep working with minimum maintenance for 100 years or more.

Electricity production is the same business as any other production. Most of the world's electricity is generated by combusting minerals. Mining will eventually move to countries that can offer the cheapest electricity prices.

I have never taken these stupid comparisons of electricity costs for Bitcoin mining and electricity costs for servicing the VISA payment system seriously.

This is a business, and in business, profit is important, not the amount of resources spent.

Methane gas is not infinite and do you know what rising demand comes with? Higher prices! And once something in a chain costs more guess what will happen to the end product. Energy is free if you find a way to capture transport and store it for free, and as you can see that's not possible.
I can give you one hundred things that would have top priority with unlimited energy, one of them being drinking water. Dare to compare?


Do you mean that when we're talking about bitcoin we should also add the 11 000 ATMs as we do with banks? And we should also the energy consumption of all the exchanges with their data centers and offices? And count the energy of all the nodes?
Come to the dark side, you infidel   

Anyhow, seems like the energy consumption has just dropped somewhere between 10-20% depending on gear efficiency, no more cheap hydro in Sichuan, no more cheap coal in Inner Mongolia, no way to enter Xinjiang...problem solved!

In order not to become a victim of various horror stories about bitcoin and how much it is now gluttonous in terms of electricity, it is best to consider this problem from the other side. First you need to answer the question - what lies on the other side of the scale! If the advantages that bitcoin provides more than outweigh the costs of its existence, then it has the right to develop further.

It's not a serious concern because electricity is unlimited. As long as there's demand there will be supply.

We know that electrical energy can be made from wind, solar, ocean tides, geothermy and even methane gas. All those resources are infinite and the only requirement for them to be used is rising demand. Rising demand means somebody will pay for those new production facilities to be constructed.

We could double our world power production but we don't do it because there's not enough demand.

This also needs to be a serious concern bitcoin really consumes a lot of energy and others, but I only learn and correct it if I'm wrong, if the small miners are reduced and there are only a few large miners, whether to make the Diff small then the energy used is not too big to mine, it's just a thought, but it's not really working and effective, just looking at the altcoins the miner left so the Diff becomes small so maybe mining is easier with smaller hashrate too

Touché
Maybe next time I'll use the pig farm as example 


Yep, just I hope that in the future other businesses will start to matter too, not only the mining. And maybe that'll add more "variation". Because in order to be (closer to) fair, all the Bitcoin businesses should be taken into consideration, not only mining, isn't it?

Electrical energy is a type energy (duh), there's nothing wrong to refer to it as just energy, especially since there's so many ways how electric energy can be produced - burning fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams, solar power, etc.


You are trying to make Bitcoin look good in this comparison, but it's actually just like your title - they are not comparable. Something like Visa is deeply incorporated in the global economy and billions of people are relying on it, while Bitcoin has maybe 5-30 millions of users, most of whom don't even use it on a daily basis.

The alternative energy used is indeed very useful and does not depend on non-renewable energy such as coal which is a common energy producer of electricity. The use of electrical energy produced by solar cells will certainly be more efficient and more environmentally friendly because solar energy will not run out and can be used forever. Several other alternative energies that can be used, such as wind power generation, hydropower (waterfalls or water with heavy currents) and several other alternative energies.

The consumption of bitcoin for electrical energy will have many solutions and do not look negatively about its excessive use, because electrical energy can be produced by natural resources that will never run out.

Excessive use of electrical energy is not only in the bitcoin mining process, there are many others that use higher electricity.

Yup!
Can a farm raise pigs (family business  ) consume 50 euros worth of electricity per kg of meat? Nope!
Can a shop that has monthly revenue of 1000 euros spend 1500 on electricity? Again no!
We're talking about two systems and comparing expenditures total without comparing revenue and thus usage, which is totally inaccurate.


If something is unfair and you come back at it with an unfair argument then you're doing the same.


If you manage to pinpoint the price I can give you a pretty sure estimate on what the consumption will be, there is nothing that special in it.

You're right, but you've got my sentences out of context imho.

Both "Bitcoin consumes as much as whatever country" and "how about banks" are wrong. Bitcoin miners and also the banks are businesses that pay for the electricity they use and make profit. Some go out of business (on both "sides") and Bitcoin and fiat will still exist. And there are plenty of businesses that use the electricity well and plenty of using it bad (for example wasting it) and the world goes on.
Still people point to Bitcoin... As I wrote in the previous post: it's incorrect and unfair.

(Of course guesstimating how much electricity will Bitcoin businesses consume in the future is also useless and bound to be incorrect.)

How much energy does a bank with 400k transactions a day (that's about 1/5 ) of the population of Bucharest if I remember correctly consume?
And don't!!! come with the story about how bitcoin usage will grow, the moment millions will be using the price will go up by x10 and the reward will allow miners to burn at least x10 at the same profit rate.

Right now no matter how you try to paint it yes, BTC relies on printing money (block reward) for its safety. If it were for the money printing and it would rely only on fees the network hash rate would be from 1/10to 1/5 (right now because of the huge fees) and so would be the electrical consumption.

And seriously, what is with all this whataboutism?
Why can't bitcoiners discuss something without immediately shouting: WHAT ABOUT BANKS?

The first myth was because people don't understood it that good, as well as science terms like energy and electricity. They might have coined it using "energy" because electricity is a form of energy, too bad people easily believe on what they have seen written on the internet and they will hold that information til someone brings it up to them. Although it's not so wrong, but specifying is the real thing that we must spread on the internnet.

People only talk about the energy consumption from mining rigs and other equipments in mining farms but they don't talk about energy consumption from bank systems. Energy will be consumed by national central banks (in buildings, for staffs - ventilation, air conditioners, ...) or money printing factories. Maybe more things will consumed energy.

I don't know bitcoin network or bank systems consume more energy. I think bitcoin network consumes less energy because things are confirmed online and require less sources for human, staffs, buildings, offices, and other things need energy or electricity.

Good summary OP.
What I'd like to add to this is that saying that Bitcoin uses energy should not be a negative point. There are finite and infinite energy sources. While oil is finite, energy produced from the sun is not and with enough solar panels the netwok can be supported indefinitely. As long as Bitcoin mining can finance the production of these panels, it's all fine.
People who use such arguments to attack Bitcoin are dumb.

Let's start with the start: it's not Bitcoin eating up that energy, it's (crypto mining) companies and individuals that use that energy, (usually) pay for it and earn money off it.
And now ... how my energy does US dollar "eating up"?
Or how much energy does the banking system use?

All I want to point out (once again) is that the news and numbers about "Bitcoin energy consumption" are unfair/incorrect (they compare apples with oranges) and all the predictions are completely useless.
But news writers have to write something (how much energy do newspaper waste?) and some will always write against Bitcoin too (whether they're paid to do so or they are genuinely convinced that Bitcoin must be evil).