Topic: Congress Hearing On Bitcoin’s Energy Use (Read 615 times)

More needs to retriate about bitcoin mining and environmental impact.


source

This is actually what we meant by bitcoin mining being environmental friendly, emissions from the mining activities are rather a solution to the toxic effect of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, but carbon dioxide has a strong benefits on human breathe, aquatic lives and the entire environment of the ecosystem including plants, no degredation felt during the process of bitcoin mining into the atmosphere, unlike the natural resource mining that causes a depletion in the ozone layer through the effect of Co (carbon monoxide) and difficulty on living organism breathing rate, contermination of the water and so on, but bitcoin mining is friendly with the environment.
Another benefit serving a solution is: Bitcoin mining being used to reduce harmful methane emission

I couldn't but rather save myself in watching the 3:25 (three minutes, twenty five seconds) video clip https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1561065069210963971?t=dYG8ZJ44eCmvFrWDPk-K-w&s=19 where i finds the new interesting benefit of bitcoin mining which now emerge with the use of "Coal Waste" in generating the energy needed for the mining activities of bitcoin instead of laying them to waste in compounding to the environmental hazard and for these coal wastes got sinking down into the ground causing more harm in polluting the environmental ecosystem, this could thereby cause the underground waterways suffers huge detriment of the heavy metals with their respective casinogens, bitcoin have always been the awaited multi versatile solution to all prospects that key into it opportunities.

Out of the estimated 90,000 dams in the United States only about 2,200 of them generate hydroelectric power. These hydropower resources, however, account for 7 percent of national energy production and contribute 37 percent of the nation’s renewable energy supply. In 2016, a U.S. Department of Energy study forecast that hydropower in the United States could expand from its current capacity of 101 gigawatts to nearly 150 gigawatts by 2050. This growth would come not from new dam construction but from upgrading existing hydroelectric resources, adding pumped storage capacity, and retrofitting nonpowered dams for hydropower. Hence, there have been a growing effort to retrofit so-called nonpowered dams, or any dams created for a need other than hydropower, for electricity production.

This can serve as an opportunity for Bitcoin miners because the people in such locality already have an alternative source of power and it could be less expensive because it is far better cheaper than constructing a new dam. Typically the dam’s operation is not changed, so there is usually much less opposition from communities and environmental groups than there would be to a new dam project.

At first I had not noticed the article was from one year ago.. so we need to take that into account, as well in terms of what calculations that the power plant operators might have been making last year versus how they might reconsider the matter this year with bitcoin having dips bringing it perhaps 1/3 the price as it was at various points last year... but still in the end, many of us know that bitcoin can be a quite profitable investment so long as you don't get too greedy about matters, and you are able to figure out ways to balance your cashflows so that you do not get overleveraged in one direction or another.

When we attempt to figure out what various enterprises might do, or how they might choose to balance their use of debt, and various ways to create cashflow so that they can potentially accumulate both bitcoin and cash in order to sustain their operations, we know that sometimes they end up getting into trouble because they might overly leverage in one direction or another - and even with something like attempting to run a hydro power plant with a purpose of accumulating bitcoin, I would consider it a better operation to attempt to attempt to employ some kind of a hybrid model in order to serve the public with electricity at the same time as mining bitcoin, even though they may have concluded that the bitcoin portion of the business is more profitable, and part of my rationale would be that a power plant may have had public funds in the past, and there continues to be various kinds of ways that the public has concerns over its own energy costs and have beliefs that the public has an interest in benefiting from energy production - especially if there have been various ways that the hydro power plant might have been involved in providing electricity to the public in the past and might have received various kinds of public funding at various points in its life, too.  Another thing when any kind of industry has potential with interfering with the water supply (or flow) and there might be questions about whether the public has an interest in those kinds of activities, even if they might be completely on private land.

I guess that part of what I am trying to say is that there could be some potential for public (and/or governmental) backlash if such a hydropower plant were to be 100% dedicated to mining bitcoin rather than figuring out ways to proclaim that the public interest is also being served by providing electricity, too... and what that divide would be might be discretionary within the plant rather than having such production imposed by governmental entities.. even something like 50/50 could be a starting point or even a target point, but it might not necessarily be the best way to allocate such operations, and maybe even the owners and/or experienced people (experts) in the various industries of bitcoin mining and/or energy production would know until they put the operation into practice for several years to find some zone of operation allocations that they believe work for their particular plant based on a variety of considerations, geography, infrastructure already in place, upkeep of the infrastructure, bitcoin price and difficulty level fluctuations, changes in the regulatory environment, etc etc).

US has the capacity to mine bitcoin because there is a constant light supply. And since the moved was spearheaded by the Congress, the governing council will do something to it. And that means, the government will be fully involve in the adoption of bitcoin. Waste can be converted to energy so using bitcoin energy will make the mining companies more active.

This is going to be pretty hard to convince otherwise when the amounts are right there. I mean electricity is obvious and how much you could sell them for which will mean that it's going to be something that is basic since you only calculate what you would earn by selling it, and what you would earn by using it to mine. That's good enough, and if you are a big enough company then you could do both, half of it goes to mining, and half of it goes to selling it and covering the expenses which would allow you to not sell any bitcoin at all, it's basically free.

You are both breaking even thanks to selling left over electricity, and you are also using half to get free bitcoin as well.

Bitcoin mining has won a good edge here again in providing access to rehabilitation and reuses of one old and abandoned ineffective hydroelectric power plan in Mechanicville, but to my greatest surprise, this is the most astonishing part of it all.


Indeed bitcoin is more preferably than the hands over of the government in an establishment to be successful, bitcoin is providing more insights to maximizing opportunities in various energy and power sectors for effective utilizations, here they believed bitcoin mining could profit them than any form of centralized authority in handling the operations of the old abandoned power plant.

We should in other words advise the governments to first take care of the already environmental catastrophe in place as a result of natural resources  mining and other environmental pollutions needed to be given serious attention of which affect lives than bitcoin energy usage which has no implication on health and lives of human being.


Its part of their motives but they never knew that bitcoin has gone beyond the era of getting influenced by news especially of this manners, they have tried in many ways to counter the role and adoption of bitcoin but the resistive force is far beyond their imagination because because is not just accepted by the governments for adoption but the people have gone far beyond their expectations adopting bitcoin.

Well i never expected such from government because bitcoin is decentralized and this alone is a plus bonus for individuals adoption, not to talk of how they have been launching CBDC against bitcoin which has no any inference or change to what is on ground, the fact remains fiat currency is fiat and bitcoin remains decentralized digital currency and nothing can be changed about the two as it remains constant k.

I take the report on Bitcoin mining energy consumption as a political tool to undermine the cryptocurrency industry and also to make way for centralized financial control of the bank and other traditional financial institutions who see and passive the cryptocurrency industry as a threat to their existence monopolistic control. The greenhouse institutions are also established by the government as an agency which makes it clear that their judgment is at the mercy of the government and how their passive bitcoin, Bitcoin prove of work POW is a highly decentralized system that does not allow for third-party involvement so the most centralized autocratic government have negative appetite towards decentralization since it gives total freedom.  What the government lack is infrastructure if the UK or US have updated infrastructure that converts various carbon dioxide and guaranty eco free global space the activities of Bitcoin miners will become a way to generate revenue I believe the United state will look in that direction if I were part of EU Parliament I will have voted against a total ban of Prove of work cryptocurrency mining. Let's look at it that the whole fight was based on stereotyped and sentimental judgment.

This energy issue has always prevailing in the debates and now the Congress just want another propoganda to defame the image of bitcoin by showing that through mining energy many other works could be done like officials have also stated that through single bitcoin transaction many US household could consume electricity and many more to come.

But have they not given any importance to that how miners are moving to energy efficient and renewable methods? The hash rates have increased and energy consumption has decreased with 25% and more than 60% is now green energy consumption for mining purpose.



So they will ignore these charts and keep on debating on the same topic but how many banks are other monetary services contribute to the total energy usage in US only? Much more than btc so if you are having some POW based coin that have the capability to change the financial system but with some electricity which miners are trying to solve also disturb them and they suddenly become so environment friendly? This is same old bullshit which they are not bored of .

As per the latest reports of Mining council they are briefing about the usage but you see only a few percentage cares to listen to them :



Will see forward to the hearing and what next they come up with but the council is also ready for defending itself and raise up the bitcoin to ordinary people in true representative.

I don't necessarily agree with you that "tree huggers" have money, but for sure, there is a certain amount of the information space that fails/refuses to account for actual facts - or even to account for a lot of the practicalities that come through bitcoin's possible role in various aspects of energy balancing - whether involving some of the incentivizing of more energy production from less expensive sources or even having some discussions that involve how bitcoin mining may well start to serve larger and larger roles in the innovation of vertical integrated operations in jurisdictions that do not strive to stifle that and can figure out ways to possibly benefit from having bitcoin operations in various places around the world, if they could get over the idea that magical internet money (namely bitcoin - and not referring to the various shitcoin smoke and mirror scams) does actually also serve various public purposes that end up serving as a good use of energy as compared to some other ways that energy might be used to prop up some of the fiat money system behaviors that are likely way less efficient and way less in the public interests than they are made out to be whether we are considering the Cantillon effect or just considering the various ways that the printing of money makes a fool out of the people and their supposed consent to such ways that inflation ends up robbing them in more subtle ways that the solid aspects of magical bitcoin money provides standards and surely does not cost very much (in terms of overall energy usage) as the exaggerated and largely ill-informed (misleading too) claims like to throw out into the public discourse on the topic.

**presentation note... I am thinking that maybe I should have put a period somewhere in my above paragraph/sentence?  perhaps?  perhaps?

Congress will listen more to the people filling their pockets with tax money and/or bribes ....or even opportunities to profit from tenders. The uninformed "Tree huggers" do not have a clue what they talking about, because they are moved by the agenda that are pushed by mainstream (paid) media.

The calculations that supports "energy" myths regarding Bitcoin mining, have been debunked many times before... but nobody are listening. It is easier to be spoon fed by the mass media, than doing the math on their own..... or to compare Apples with Apples. (Ask these people to calculate how much greenhouse gasses and pollution are caused by the mining and manufacturing of Fiat currencies... eg. nickel, copper, and zinc and plastic & paper &  cotton notes) 

they try to sound helpful until they put their foot into their mouth, by saying the opposite of what they pretend to intend to say..

they claim mining farms have nothing to do with the power generation. but then say things like this

so they spent many paragraphs saying that mining farms have nothing to do with power generation methods.. then slightly flip by saying 2 examples "Ameren and Greenidge" do have links to it, but only represent 2% of world bitcoin mining (meaning more then 2% of american mining)
and then flip again to say that marathon.. america's biggest mining farm. does have coal facilities. is currently using them, but intents to stop using them in the future.
..
its like saying "im sorry police officer but i dont think my son is a thief you have no evidence he is a thief, and i have never personally seen him steal anything.... oh wait there was that one time i seen him steal the family car, and that other time he told me how he used the car to do a bank robbery, but that doesnt count right.. oops i just gave you some evidence, anyway, tell my son we love him and we will visit him once a month for the first 5 years of his incarceration"

..........
its just as bad as when the bitcoin mining consortium also exaggerated the numbers to say that bitcoin mining was using 150-250TW when actual numbers were more like 50TW.

what are they playing at.. do they even read their letters/memos/presentations before publishing to see how their sentiments come across..
they want to sound like they are helping while actually giving the ammo to the opposition to fire off on everyone

Bitcoin Mining Council wrote a letter to the EPA trying to shed some light on the supposed bitcoin needy consumption:

 I read an article recently talking about the United States Office of Science and Technology saddled with the responsibility to request for public opinions from the people on the possible impacts of the crypto mining energy and the effect on the environment after considering possible reason behind the proposed EU ban on bitcoin mining as a result of the challenging PoW and the effect of waste and unutilized energy posing environmental climate change.

I understand and know that bitcoin mining does not constitute to the global environmental hazard as energy loss as a result of mining is not upto ⅛ of the global energy loss due to inefficiency and this become one of the reasons bitcoin places no environmental degredation, as the government now divert attention in considering the rate of energy loss during petroleum refining, heavy duty equipment and facilities, production companies,  automobile exhaust, fire/material burnings, and the likes.

I discover a recent move by the United State most recognized oil and gas company Exxon Mobil which is set to make an effective utilization of the energy loss in refining petroleum for bitcoin mining as it tends to extend this development within the regions it has some of it plant stations such as: Argentina, Germany, Nigeria and Guyana. It can be concluded that bitcoin has not come to constitute to the environmental hazard but rather bringing a solution to it.

The use (you are right, “the use”, not the “waste” of energy for bit pin mining is a false problem.
The total energy used for bitcoin mining is about 0,05% of the total energy production.
It’s not bitcoin roel to make energy production clean, but bitcoin mining can have a positive role on this.
See these two treads:

Debunking the ""Bitcoin is an environmental disaster"" argument
ALPS BLOCKCHAIN: mining in Italy from 100% renewable energy

the use of minin bitcoin energy is always at issue. This has become news that is heard quite often and is always a problem that continues to be discussed, because bitcoin is always associated with global warming that will threaten this earth. Mining more extreme than bitcoin is certainly still a lot and not only creates problems with excessive energy use, but also very serious environmental problems.
Bitcoin is currently also using renewable energy or using energy from nature so that the energy burden will not be too heavy and environmentally friendly.

We are not denying the fact that bitcoin consumes energy. But my problem is why bitcoin energy consumption is always treated in isolation. While others are treated together and seen as normal, bitcoin is always singled out and treated as a menace.
It is because they want to drag the the reputation of bitcoin to zero and then they will kill bitcoin. But can they?
They cannot kill bitcoin. I know one day the last bitcoin will be mined and I will wait to hear their excuses again against bitcoin.

Kazakhstan energy challenges:

Another bitcoin mining facility shutdown in Kazakhstan due to insufficient power supply from the country's electricity recent shortage encountered, the report stated that the entire country had an experience of blackout due to high demands of energy (power) used in mining activities. While stating that the disconnection is slated to last till 31st of January 2022.


Base on the report we had, the bitcoin mining company complains been incapacitated to source for finance due to the cost of it mining activities it incurred.