Topic: Overseing health and environmental impact of high energy required in Bitcoin (Read 268 times)

It's completely the other way around!

The perfect example is Europe, Germany as I mentioned before has spent 150 billions each year to pay for subsidies for solar and wind, the results? The most expensive energy in the world for a country that size.
Nobody here encourages fossil power plants, till...well till we need them as Europe is in an energy crisis where the only way to get out is by restarting coal powerplants that were supposed to be decommissioned and more and more gas one.

Despite what everyone says, both wind and solar are expensive as fuck, even with government subsidies. And on top of that, they can't guarantee 24/7 power, funny enough probably none of the officials in Germany knew before throwing that amount at solar panels that Germany gets the same amount of sun exposure as Alaska!!!!, an average of 3 peak hours a day!

If they would have spent all that money on nuclear energy Europe would have been now an exporter! Imagine that!
Luckily, there is still hope:

European Commission declares nuclear and gas to be green

Or you know, instead of continuously complaining about how bad bitcoin's energy consumption is, why not governments make a move to help people do the switch from fossil fuels to renewables and help change this problem not only for bitcoin but also for other industries that use too much energy? Oh that's right, the government protects energy companies that utilize fossil fuels as they have vested interest on them.

It's really crazy how these reports surface, and how they only point out bitcoin as that one big mofo that uses excess energy when in fact there are other countless industries out there that use more or the same amount of energy. Perhaps they can advocate towards the use of renewables too, but they most probably won't.

It just never made sense to me for these type of calculations to be made. Like how bitcoin is something bad for the energy when there are just 100 companies that are responsible for the 70% of pollution in the world. Yes that is right, just 100 companies, if those companies were gone today then we would have clear world and we would not have CO problems and we would be all doing fine.

So basically, all these energy crisis, all these pollution, all these climate change situations are all based on just 100 companies and how they need to make a profit. Most of them are energy companies and if we could replace that energy with renewable ones and then close those companies then we would not have any of these problems, bitcoin is literally nothing compared to those.

Not to sound bleak or depressing.

But if it is true that climate change and global warming are destroying the planet. And if it is true that we are currently in the midst of a mass species extinction. And if it is true that economic crisis is driving rates of suicide, crime and violence upwards to obscene levels.

It is possible that we will witness a contraction of global population which will be accompanied by a reduction in global electrical consumption. This could grant us leeway to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and implement greater prevalence of energy sources which are nearer to carbon neutral.

Bitcoin and proof of work based mining consume large quantities of green energy which helps fund the expansion for more wind and solar farms across the globe.

Crypto mining need not be doom and gloom. If it is true that we have a short amount of time before climate change becomes a serious threat, will crypto mining really make much of a difference, either way?

Honestly, if you look at the electricity usage in bitcoin mining, it's much less than electricity usage in industries globally, and even less than the banking and gold industries (https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/ research%3A-bitcoin-consumes-less-than-half-the-energy-of-the-banking-or-gold-industries). So why do so many people still worry about electricity usage in the bitcoin industry? even though it's less compared to other industries? why wouldn't people be concerned about the use of electrical energy in the banking industry? or in other industries?

I don't think you would like it

https://cointelegraph.com/news/banking-system-consumes-two-times-more-energy-than-bitcoin-research

when you close your eyes and go to sleep, that's when they can work.
Hydro is the only renewable that makes sense, solar and wind are just paving the way for humanity to go back to the Paleolithic when we were making sacrifices for clear weather and good crops. It will only change that we will have to pay half of our wage if we want to light a bulb during the night when there is no wind.

This whole stupid debate about electric consumption, about energy crisis like the one happening now, is the result of letting morons who have no clue about the economy but with big mouths dictate the energy policies of countries.  If the western world would have not been that stupid and followed up with France's example with nuclear energy nobody would have cared now about consumption. But poeple had to be stupid to follow Germany's example where you throw in 150 billion a year on green dreams only to end with the most expensive energy in the world.

This topic has been discussed and answered multiple times before.
I'm not going to waste time answering this,since it already has been answered by many forum members.
What concerns me is the low-IQ mentality and pure ignorance of many people,when it comes to this subject.
They are just thinking "carbon emissions=bad" and "electricity production=bad" "Bitcoin consumes electricity,which means that Bitcoin=bad". This is just hilarious.
We are all bad,because we consume electricity.We just have to shut down all the TVs,computers,fridges and lightning in our houses.We should go back to the medieval age,because electricity is bad for the planet.

I would love to see a direct comparison between the electricity used by Bitcoin mining and then how much electricity are used by the Banking industry and the Credit card companies and PayPal etc..

Let's look at the total Carbon footprint... Example : Air Conditioners in Offices / CCTV cameras / Fuel used to transfer cash / Energy to create Paper money and coins / Energy used to mine metals used in coins / Trees cut down to create paper money or Silk or Plastic

I think people will be shocked if they see how much energy are used by the Fiat financial system. 

When you read the book of the enemy of your father, don't expect to see a paragraph praising your father. You drew your premise from anti-bitcoin media. This any consumption scandal has been on for a long time and I think I am personally use to it.
The electricity consumed by Netflix as an entertainment industry is large. But they will not be pointed out, always bitcoin.
Again, is bitcoin electricity consumption that deeply connected to the green system. I mean depletion of ozone layer and so.
One day bitcoin will be vindicated.

Because the anti-bitcoin people will always look for something negative about bitcoin and they will highlight it. But if you look at the bigger picture, it is actually not a problem. Just take a look at what Lucius posted about bitcoin mining energy consumption vs the energy loss worldwide. Why not these anti-bitcoin or anti-crypto find ways on how to prevent those energy losses instead of criticizing bitcoin mining? At least with btc mining, it is helping a lot of people. If an entity doesn't like certain industry, they will try to ruin it by throwing negative comments even without solid basis.

This is a bit of a wrong type of approach to the problem. The problem in the world is not high energy usage, we will keep needing more and more in the future anyway, even if we removed all bitcoin miners, we will reach that eventually and even surpass it one day. The problem is not using energy, it is creating energy and how.

Right now, energy production happens in all kinds of wrong ways and that causes the environment to be in a bad state, if we had worldwide renewable energy structure that everyone uses and there are no bad energy creation like coal or oil or gas, then we would not have any of these problems. Plus pollution is another minus, if we didn't had pollution in the world then none of these problems would exist as well. So long story short bitcoin miners are not the problem, they are the customers to the people who are killing the world, but not doing it themselves.

I do not know why there is a link between Bitcoin and the carbon footprint, as Bitcoin mining requires energy from whatever source, and the continuation of research may lead us to create devices that cost less energy, and renewable energy sources will be more.

The problem of energy is global, and when more research and other things are done, we will find that the voices calling for mining problems will be reduced.

In general, the media has a role in this misconception, in the past it was linked between Bitcoin and dark activities, now it is linked to wasting electricity.

That's exactly the part eco terrorists want you to forget. The narrative is that if you mine bitcoin you hurt the environment and it can be divided into two main arguments:
1. The life of a miner is usually 2 years and then it gets thrown away.
2. Mining hurts the environment and uses too much energy.

In reality, most mining farms currently use old miners because they're still making profit. Most mining in the world is done on older antminers made before 2019, so the life of a miner is much longer than 2 years. What does it mean "too much?" Particle accelerators used a lot of energy and costed a lot of money. Global arms market costs a lot of money and most tanks ships and fighter jets are thrown away without ever seeing battle.

my Nicest Uncaffieinated take on this.

Fuck Right Off.  Start your argument with agreement and then add the Buuuuut.  <<< psychological persuasion technique, 

Second technique is the laundry list of reasons(real or not)  ..   

Third mix in the some truth with the supposition and outright lies.   

So just Fuck Right Off. 

The data provided really shed more light and am much convince now that Bitcoin energy consumption during mining is incomparable to the energy loss due to inefficiency thereby making it posses less toxic effect on human and the environment


My concern was to ensure not creating another problem or add to it while trying to solve one. But base on the information received from @Lucius post and @NeuroticFish i clearly understand from the data analysis which stated that the energy consumed due to bitcoin mining is not to be  compared to the energy loss due to inefficiency.

What you quoted is his "good reason", concern for his own health and the fate of the planet which, according to some so-called experts, is being destroyed by Bitcoin mining. He doesn't see all those countless cars that emit the carcinogenic compounds he inhales, all those 24/365 smoke factories and the livestock industry that produces huge amounts of methane and other harmful gases.

The planet was destroyed by modern life long before Bitcoin was even an idea in someone's head, and today someone wants to say that it is the fault of technology that originated some ten years ago.

Just some small questions:
* wasn't this a problem also before bitcoin was invented?
* would this be solved if bitcoin would be completely shut down?
* do you actually know how much is Bitcoin's energy consumption compared to all the rest? (yep, somebody has posted that, 0.14%)

And then... why asking all this only in relation with Bitcoin? Any particularly good reason?

We need also to put things in perspective. This energy debate is skewed from the get go, we should not only compare it to the current banking system but overall as a way to store wealth.

Eg: One of the most popular ways to store wealth is the housing market.

Currently we build a lot of real estate not because we need places to live but because we need to store wealth since the currency you get paid is getting devalued over time.

For some reason this is considered acceptable (you produce houses, buildings, etc) but its an extremely inefficient way to store wealth, it cannot be easily transferred its not really divisible. This also create wealth inequality because it increase the price of homes and make it impossible for most middle income families to be homeowner.

And for sure, building, destroying forest and creating giant sometimes empty cities create massive health hazard and destroy the environment. Compared to that, bitcoin mining seems suddenly very efficient way to store your wealth.

It seems to me that you are saying that Bitcoin mining is a problem because electricity generation produces carbon monoxide. That's a new one.

The problem is that electricity generation produces CO. Electricity usage does not.

The only way the renewable sources of energy can work is if the government cooperates and at the same time one have to understand the fact that they only become viable when taken as a option for long term investment, which I do think many individual enterprises cannot do. The companies are the one's who have to start such things, they have to use their power as well and this is going to be super important since most of the times the only downfall one can find in Bitcoins is the inefficiency of mining and how it's affecting the environment as a whole. This topic is very widely discussed but needs more focus undoubtedly.

If you draw your knowledge from anti-Bitcoin media, then you can't come to different conclusions from the ones you presented. If I tell you that Bitcoin is not a problem in terms of mining, will you believe it to be true or will you still doubt it? You don't have to believe me, believe the official data which say that Bitcoin mining uses as much as 0.14% of the total world production, so this is about 220 TWh, while the loss of energy worldwide is as much as 50 000 TWh.

If research is to be believed, more than 50% of the energy used for BTC mining comes from renewable sources, so the problem you are talking about does not exist - it neither affects your health, nor will you remain in the dark because of Bitcoin. An interesting fact is that in about 8-10 years, 99% of all BTC will be mined, so I believe that the number of miners will be significantly reduced. I hope that everyone who is worried about this problem will understand by then what kind of nonsense they have made public.

I did think, as long as renewable energy can become cheaper and as long as there's space to install it, it'll likely take over as the main producer of mining electricity.

The only way to reduce fossil fuel output is to put up tax on the fossil fuels or drop the cost on renewable energy producers (until either of those happens, nothing will change much).

Due to high consumption of power (electricity) demand in bitcoin operations and the respective effect of carbon emmisions through the process, progressive research have been made by various categories concerned in medical, environmental, science and technology fields in finding a solution to ameliorate the hazardous impacts of high power demand causing an unending continuous emmision of CO gas which is believe to be human and environmentally hazardous.

Medically, it is believed that carbon monoxide (CO) has a detrimental effect on human health such as: Asthma, severe cough, respiratory disorder, cells inflammation, damage to organs, irritation, difficult breathing and blood disorders. While it's Environmental effect could constitute the depletion of ezone layer, global warming, bad weather or climate change, indescriminate killing of primitive lifes among others. 

Although there have been work on how to engage with the use of a renewable energy but could be a milestone because of power demand and supply. Not until I come across the major reason for the high demand of energy as stated below:

My major idealogy of bringing this topic is to hear our respective opinions on how Bitcoin mining and other crypto related activities could not impose a future detriment on livelihood or contribute to it.