Topic: Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument. - page 9. (Read 5036 times)

The only problem with hydro in Europe is that you can't really expand the capacity, where it was a good place a damn has already been built decades ago if they do generate some excess power you can tap that but you're limited and I doubt the eco-movement will allow any major damn to be built in Europe, so yeah, their expansion on that model will inevitably hit a barrier somewhere in the future.

With nuclear, you can build as many as you want, you need a lake (it can be artificial) and fuel (we have enough for centuries).
But no, we need to fill half of the world with solar panels and the other half with batteries all subsidized with taxpayer money because one crazy kid can't keep her mouth shut. /rant over

El Salvador started mining Bitcoin using otherwise wasted Geothermal energy:



https://twitter.com/documentingbtc/status/1442955263149887490?s=21

This bitcoin mining operation is using 100% renewable energy that wasn't used before!

A nice article on the WSJ, illustrating how nuclear power plants can benefit from coupling their operation with bitcoin mining.

Bitcoin Miners Eye Nuclear Power as Environmental Criticism Mounts




It is something very similar, albeit on a bigger scale, to what Blockchain Alps has been doing with hydroelectric power.

ALPS BLOCKCHAIN: mining in Italy from 100% renewable energy
 

It's the usual effect of the news, people are agitated for a while, then they realize that the world has not ended and then they lose interest as they were never deeply involved with it. I have a different plan during days like this, rather than trying to convince anybody that this and that is not happening I'm just not debating. What's the point of telling people the sun will rise again tomorrow, they will see for themselves.


There is no losing here other than losing your time to combat something that will die down on its own. The China ban news will go away since even in normal days there wasn't much news coming from there anyhow, the energy problem is getting fixed by kwh prices and lack of gear, things are actually looking far better now than 6 months ago. Also, there might be another wave of bad news. If they are really serious about this might go after pools and mining gear manufacturers, which is going to trigger another wave of a headless chicken running amok although at this point the consequences would be minimal.

Let a few days pass, enjoy that coffee in the morning when you read the press and everyone has realized that no apocalypse has happened, it's just like in a football match, discussions immediately after the game are completely different than one's two days later.

Bitcoin is not an environmental disaster and they should really give up on defending their own ideas. Because it is not true. In Bitcoin mining, fossil fuels were used for a long time period. But these days, we can clearly see that it is changing. Elon Musk also indicated some months ago that he would think of starting to accept Bitcoin for Tesla payments and he really changed his mind some time later as he saw that renewable energies started being used more than 50% in Bitcoin mining.

Indeed I am.
You don't know me. A lot of people are coming to me and saying "China Banned!" "Bitcoin is going to fail!" "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster any my raising energy bills are caused by hungry miners!"
So, yes, I might resort to old news and mental construct for a little bit of sanity.... I have probably already lost.

It didn't "just" happened, it's from April   
https://www.wsmtlaw.com/blog/bitcoin-is-booming-why-wyoming-is-a-virtual-currency-leader-and-how-the-oil-gas-industry-and-cryptocurrency-are-intermingling.html
A bit unexpectedly though, I don't know why but I picture all those states like in the northwest like the ones most resistant to changes and slow to adapt. If you tell me about WY, Montana Dakota I can't picture anything other than mountains and people in hunting gear. 

I wonder how this will last with the current democrat party views, they terminated keystone, stopped issuing leases on federal land, maybe till they make more stupid decisions they will finally realize that their eco madness is driving up prices to an insane level, we're already back to 70$/barrel and no downtrend insight.
Montana could power half of the bitcoin network if they would just be left alone and hopefully, nobody will mess this thing up now.


You're overreacting.
They've banned cryptos, they didn't ban blockchain projects, they didn't ban any other kind of development, just coins.
What is the state going to lose for real from this? Poeple not investing in bitcoin and gaining profits? They will invest in something else.

Those profits can't be achieved unless some other people buy, the value is decided on a free market so right now even the western world is hurt in terms of future profits since supposedly no more Chinese money will flow into cryptos. There is no actual loss ordinary Chinese people will face in the future, nor this is the state if bitcoin takes over the world and it's valued at $100million they will buy at that price and they will have x worth in bitcoin, this is not a loss but unrealized gains.
A bit of overreacting on both sides, it's not like bitcoin will suffer that much from China but neither is China doomed because they have banned crypto, they've risen to become a superpower without crypto this it ain't going to stop them.

This is really good news, not only for Bitcoin, but for the environment as well. It reminded me of the Saudi Aramco case from some 2 months ago which at least according to official statements turned out to be a mere rumor, but someone has obviously realized that flared gas has untapped potential that can kills two flies with one blow.

As for China, I think they can obviously afford to turn their backs on Bitcoin (at least as far as crypto mining profits are concerned) because even if all BTCs were mined in China + fees, @stompix calculated that for them this does not represent a significant financial loss. This is not even a matter of consumption or lack of energy, if we know that only one of their largest hydropower plants in one year throws out the amount of energy sufficient for at least 80% of the annual needs of Bitcoin mining.

As far as I can remember, some prominent people from the world of cryptocurrencies in the US have called for this development - because given all the tensions that existed between the two countries, throwing them out in the crypto business was the ultimate goal - and in the end the Chinese threw themselves out without anyone asking for it.

Something interesting just happened in Wyoming:



https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1441760881038200832?s=20

To me, this is another clear example of the huge historical error China made exiting from the mining industry a while ago, and from the whole bitcoin industry recently (apparently)

Calling themselves out of an industry with so many "branches" in such different sectors, and anyway all at the cutting edge of technology, is something that no country can afford. They are leaving huge advantages to the US in this field of development.

China Bitcoin Mining Ban made the market accelerate toward modern, more sustainable, and efficient ways of mining.

Blockstream and Macquarie to Form Carbon Neutral Bitcoin Mining Partnership


You might not like the involved firms, but it's uncontestable the effort made towards new ways of running the bitcoin mining. Only the time will tell us if it is the correct, i.e. more efficient way, to do that.

  I support your opinion that the "non-environmentally friendly" bitcoin mining is nothing more than another excuse for trying to worsen the image of bitcoin as a decentralized asset beyond the control of the authorities and regulators.
   

Isn't this difference thingy making you wonder anything?
There is a huge difference between producing power continuously and producing power continuously at maximum capacity, it will produce 1% when the tide is changing and 100% in full movement, this is no longer about knowledge on the subject is pure physics, you can't have a mass of water flowing with the same speed constantly as you need a zero moment, that's how all tides work and this is why all tidal powerplants have the same generation curve.

Sihwa 24.8%, Rance 28%.

Besides, why would a 100GW powerplant produce only 200Thw if it would run at full capacity nonstop? The answer is simple, because it doesn't.

I suppose my knowledge in this matter is not very different from yours, so I will allow myself to argue with you ... As I already said, Penzhinskaya Lip is the only place on our planet where gravitational forces change the water level twice a day with the strongest amplitude (although, depending on the orbit of the Moon, there will still be energy loss not exceeding 25%, but this is compensated by a very high current speed). And precisely due to the fact that in this bay, there is a very large difference between the highest and lowest point, ebb and flow currents can be used for the constant generation of electricity, the question is only reduced to the presence of two alternately operating systems _[1].

   If we consider any waste of energy in this way, then we can go very far. For absolutely any waste of energy, there is a person or a group of people who will consider, for example, watching TV programs to be meaningless and useless. If the energy is paid for, then who cares what it is used for? Isn't this a personal matter for everyone? It's just that environmental friendliness is just another excuse for the authorities to curb the spread of the adoption of bitcoin as a value transfer system independent of them.

Bitcoin Magazine again on Bitcoin mining and solar energy:

IS SOLAR POWER A GOOD FIT FOR BITCOIN MINING?



There is an interesting section about the fact that Solar Power could even be considered a green source, as many solar power panels are manufactered in China, ina very polluting way.

No, it doesn't, and the numbers themselves should have told you so if with 100GW powerplant you're expecting only 200Thw instead of the 870 Thw such a capacity would produce by running 24/7 it means you have a 22% capacity factor which is in line with the only other major tidal projects like Shia and Racen which both are under 28%.

Besides, it's normal, where do you think all that water that is pushed by the tides goes? It must come back at one point and there are phases of the build-up in both directions, nowhere on this planet, there is a continuous tide with the same amplitude.

Mining is paid for their security services the creation of new bitcoins and the processing of transactions mining provides services like any business. As long as there is a market for bitcoin some people will be willing to pay for electricity in bitcoin mines Whether mining or power is wasted is just a matter of vision for those who understand the benefits of bitcoin it is very clear why the power value of using bitcoins is good. The cryptocurrency industry is committed to contributing to the urgent environmental fight the crypto community bitcoin makes life easier and better for many people.

The energy composition used by Bitcoin mining computers is different. For example, each unit of hydropower energy has a much smaller impact on the environment than the same unit of coal energy.
Laskey offered a compelling reason why the Bitcoin system is environmentally friendly rather than harmful (contrary to popular belief), and he also raised concerns about Bitcoin's environmentally friendly future. If you want to understand why the energy consumption of the Bitcoin system is reasonable, and why the Bitcoin system saves more energy than its alternatives,
you can watchhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzT8KlSwlO4&t=25s

To dispel the myth about ecosystem change, just look at the diagram that I published above ... What I mean is that this type of power plant is absolutely safe, since the construction of the dam is necessary for the installation of turbines, and not for the retention of water masses (in the presence of a dam, the water level in the water area will change in the same way as if it changed during the ebb and flow without the dam). The daily carrying capacity of the dam is 500 cubic kilometers, the same amount of water as the Amazon River carries in 25 days, ("now imagine the 25-day energy of the Amazon compressed into 24 hours").

+ I want to add that I indicated that this is a utopian project, since it is necessary to invest tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure. Due to the fact that within a radius of several hundred kilometers there are no cities or power grids through which this electricity could be transmitted. It is for this reason that I said that it is advisable to install a mining giga-farm locally. And by the way, power generation happens 24 hours a day ... which is perfect for mining.

But the main thing that you guys missed is that I am not suggesting that miners buy this clean electricity ... the idea is to invest in the construction of this project by adding mining power to it (thereby ensuring energy-efficient mining of Bitcoins for 50 or 100 years). I will repeat the above .... in case of obsolescence of mining equipment or in case of excess electricity, ("after all, the power of this power plant is equivalent to the power of 25 nuclear power plants") can switch to the production of liquid hydrogen. This approach will make this object a means of pressure on Elon Musk's space program.

The issue of Bitcoin environmental disaster became a thing of interest to me when I stumbled on Elon Musk reason of halting purchases of Tesla vehicles with Bitcoin.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/why-elon-musk-is-worried-about-bitcoin-environmental-impact.html
Now, seeing OP attracted me to join the discussion and/or argument.

Answering why Bitcoin energy consumption is emphasised than similar energy consumers;

1. Someone you love could actually slap you and "I'm sorry dear" will solve the problem. However, someone you hate, whom you believe is a threat to your existence, if he mistakenly slaps you, it will surely end in human right office or a police station. What this means is that bitcoin is a threat to some authorities.  Even if her sins are of same magnitude with others, she would be singled out.

2.  Uncertainty of evolution: If we can honestly analyse the rate of bitcoin adoption in respect to the rate of energy consumption, we can clearly see that we may be at risk if bitcoin is massively adopted, maintaining same energy consumption rate. It's worthy to be a thing of concern.

3. Who are interested in bitcoin?: We only have two voices in the world; the government and the people. When you talk about Netflix and others, the peoples voice is so loud in favour of Netflix because of the pleasure derived from them. The government voice is also in favour due to taxes accruing from Netflix.
Now Bitcoin; the peoples voice is faint (maybe the developers, miners and investors) because the people don't know her much and in the other hand, the government voice is against it. So, her sins will always be magnified and grossly hyperbolized.

In view of the above,  government is looking for reason(s) to instigate the people against Bitcion.

Therefore; Bitcoin miners especially the Lords with high computing powers should consider migrating to renewable sources of energy. If there are companies already practicing upto 70% renewability, they should be encouraged.

Likewise, if the migration from PoW to PoS will not cause security harm, there should be considerations for this(unless there isn't provisions for this in the protocols)because I read that the later is more environmental friendly.

Thanks all.