Topic: Is Bitcoin Mining Really Causing Environmental Damage? Maybe not that much... - page 7. (Read 1924 times)

you are right the OPs statement is not valid if the industry is using already exisitng energy infrastructure.
However if the minig rigs are using newly built alternative energy source or creating demand for electricity which is filled by some alternative energy resources, it is green mining. In order to understand what is the real impact of minig , we would need more data and much wider and deeper analysis of energy markets.

There also is topic of blockchain vs fiat and there is room for discusiion if blockchain is more enviromently demaging that FIAT system.

What is more Environmentally unfriendly? Bitcoin mined from unsustainable energy or copper, nickel and zinc mines that provides these metals to be used in minting coins for the fiat system? Put that into your pipe and smoke that....  

We have not even touched on the Cotton and Paper that are used to print notes.    {How much water is wasted in this process?} Oh, before I forget, the UK are printing plastic notes now.

Let's rather look at the bigger picture, before we get the pitchforks out to attack Bitcoin again.  

I don't think that bitcoin mining causing a huge environmental damage. But I guess there occur a little by using a concidarable number of electricity. I thinik Environmental damage is occuring by many other related aspects.

As you mentioned, mining consumes a lot of energy. Large mining farms are usually located in countries with excess electricity. Mining rigs are not the only machines which "waste" electricity. They need a proper cooling. However, I have seen a few startups which are trying to make use of the heat which is generated during the process of mining. Many households would be actually able to cover the cost of electricity thanks to the earnings from mining. Once electricity becomes more expensive all around the world, mining farms owners will have to invest in renewable energy.

the scarcity of bitcoins is a problem to be solved, because the bitcoin scarcity makes a miner difficult to solve cryptographic puzzles, and electricity consumption becomes expensive.

so I think there are many other alternatives we can do to save electricity, such as hydro mining, mine using waste power, or solar power, or steam power.

Yeah i think so because it uses a lot of electricity but i think it doesn't give that much damage though

I think not really you're just consuming a lot of electricity that you used too, but nothing much compare to mining of minerals

From my point of view Bitcoins are contributing to the warming of the atmosphere without providing a significant public benefit in return. Some Bitcoin enthusiasts claim that it will eventually become a mainstream currency, and that the cryptogovernance system upon which it’s built could actually help the environment.

Mining actually creates an interesting scenario. Mining is a way for users in the network to process transactions and receive payment for participation in helping run the network. The problem lies within the very tools utilized to mine with in the first place.
Mining by today's means, requires one hell of a rig setup, which naturally wil end up being an energy consumer.
   Mining may actually present a serious problem as far as you electric bill is concerned, but other than that, this environmental threat seems to be more or so based on paranoia. I mean, let's be logical for a second and think, how many people are actually mining,  let alone equipped to do so?  I can see if every house on the block had a rig setup, but where talking bout small number of people compared to those who don't mine.

holysheeit sir you're something you really are, what are you on?.

I think you were just using more electricity you'll pay it anyways, it's no where near in mining Manganese, tantalum, cassiterite, copper, tin, nickel, bauxite (aluminum ore), iron ore, gold, silver, and diamonds   

From my point of view bitcoins play a role which contributing a much lager concept of energy consumption. I think society also understand the popularity of bitcoin in last decade. Scientist also aware about the relation of humanities carbon footprint. So I think its not that much damage our environment.

Reading this I feel tempted to say somebody hacked your account

Do you really have no clue what installed capacity and production is when we talk about hydro energy?

For three months the Yangtze is increasing its flow 6 times.
There is no way any dam could hold the amount of water needed for a median production over 12 months, so this is why the huge installed capacity comes into play, running at full power for 3 months and going below when the water levels go down.
When the rainy season is over, so it's the unlimited cheap power.

And there are times when you have to shut it down because there is too much water  


It's not a deflection.
Hydro is limited, there are just x rivers flowing with y water at z height.
You will NEVER be able to supply the whole world with hydro
So it's obvious that the only thing left was exactly the solar thing  YOU mentioned first..... 3 times

Remember?


Yeah, I've heard they've discovered another Amazon river in Mali....


and another turbine....and another one.....and you've invented the perpetuum mobile....

Get over it.
Only 15% of the global energy is produced by hydro, even if we tap every possible source we will get only to 25-30%.
And this before we plug in 3 billion electric cars

And if you mentioned staying on topic...gentlemand summarized it  perfectly


Let's see all those mini-hydropower plants in China deal with bitcoin at 100 000$.

I've said time and time again that this argument that Bitcoin is leading to damage is a bunch of bullshit spewed by the media, governments, regulators, and the sheep that blindly follow these people as a way to discredit Bitcoin (and all cryptocurrencies) Yes, bitcoin may cause some sort of environmental damage -- but are we going to compare this with the LITERAL PRINTING OF hundreds of millions of dollars of money each year, burning of bills to put them out of circulation, and so on and so forth? Bitcoin may use energy, but this energy was going to be used either way. We're not a harmless currency, but no currency is harmless. I don't get this argument by people that don't like bitcoin, it makes little to no sense.

What do you mean by green technology in China? Do you mean hydroelectric generation stations? Certainly more green than say coal or something similar.

I think I know what you mean in Iceland, that being the geothermic power, right?

ok... lets react to your chart. and like a poker game raise you my chart

yep its not 2008-2016.. but even from 2012-2016 you can see the growth..

nice bluff with the 2008 chart though..
anyway
left
~22500 in 2008
~29000 in 2012
~69000 in 2016
right
~49twh in 2008   
~119twh in 2012
~262twh in 2016

i don some trrible math in previous post converting hour yo year. which i remove in a few minutes of reading. but using a poker term, you had a quick hand to quote it in thm few minutes..

anyway.
upto 2016 it was using under 100twh but producing able to produce far more.. so had spare seats

Wrong, coal power plants are always kept on standby and they can produce at 90% in a matter of 10-30 minutes, gas power plants are even faster at coming back online.
[/quote]
what i saiid and what you said are the same thing.. coal are not switched off. because it takes time to turn them on.. so they are always on and just sat at idle asking anyone to lease their time. they are ready to go and act as the uber driver.. because it cost too much to turn them off

and the plan/utopia is for renewables to be the standby/uber and then for coal to get to leave its engine OFF not always be in standby asking if othr countries need a lift.

as for the bits below.. well you conveniently you start talking about solar and wind.... nice subtle deflection away from hydro..



yes solar and wind are vary iffy.. especially wind. but if you took hydro you can have a more controlled mix then gothermal, then biomass.. and then.. have solar next inline and then wind to use as last. you can control things. EG wind is the worse. unpredictable and so when supply is high wind can be turned off easily.. then solar and then hydro.
what the energy companies are trying to do is get to a point where it is not coal thats the main source/last to switch off.. they eventually want hydro to be the always on standby(uber) and have coal and wind as the temporary

before i continue.. ill just say this
as for mentioning countries like poland.. again nice sidestep.. you do know that poland latitude means it only gets under 8 hours of sunlight in january.
im kind of thinking you meandered away from hydro.. and away from china.. to talk about solar/wind in poland for a convenient reason..

but lets stick with hydro in china..


firstly energy sector WAS not like that. BUT is moving towards the things i said..
right now coal have lots to spare. its why they are able to sell it.. but for hydro to expand and become Lift(competitor to uber) they first need good reason to keep hydro production running 24/7.. and thats where contracted year supplys come in.. they can then get guaranteed year round revenue. and then use that revenue to expand. and have a fleet of Lift drivers(dams)

solar/wind(facepalm)

.. anyway china.. hydro (the subject of this topic) CAN store energy.. (reservoirs)
storing water vs storing coal. water is more environmentally friendly.. .. (fish and ducks CANT have sex and repopulate in coal)
turning water into electric does not produce smog.
and
imagine this.. the water thats released from a dam... can fill another reservoir.. and that same exact water can be re-used to turn more turbines

now.. to address your whole meandering..
i never said that right now this second hydro IS uber... but thats the future plan
right now electric companies need a consistant contract and payment for them to have a reason to keep hydro on 24/7.. and then use those funds to expand.. (its not free to make new dams)
so by doing yearly contracts of known electricrical usage (hiring a chauffer for a year) means the driver has a constant role to play and can expand business because they have constant revenue..

Bitcoin is now widely used and popular. Bitcoin demand can increase as more production increases. But it will not do any harm to the environment. Because the irrigation used here is environmentally friendly.

Every industry has to trash something in the fabrication process to obtain its final products. Those wastes go to the sea, to the river, to the air... The heat issued by the mining process is nothing compared to the oil or coil extraction.

If miners could find the cheapest electricity from burning coal doused in bunker oil in giant single use plastic bottles they'd use it. If they didn't, another miner would. They don't care about environmental impacts. The only reason so many went hydro in China is because it was the cheapest as those plants were sitting idle.

I think it's a tad disingenuous to pretend Bitcoin mining in its present state and level is anything other than wasteful. I don't care if banking uses plenty of electricity too. The best we can hope for is that renewable stuff gets cheaper and winds up making the most sense.

No business is harmless I guess. But if you compare the return than the damage, you will easily understand the fact. Crypto market is considering for making money rapidly using open source code. Hence, I would consider its harm if any for getting benefits from it.

Bitcoin mining has caused a lot of waste of resources and is likely to affect the use of global resources and energy.
The carbon dioxide emissions caused by the power consumption during bitcoin mining will also affect the environment!
The temperature of the BTC mine is very high and it is easy to cause a fire!