Topic: Why green bitcoin mining has become a trend? - page 3. (Read 785 times)

And green and cheap is exactly this now,,, those expensive solar panels and wind turbines or whatever it is are almost free for companies to make because governments think it is so trendy now. Paying and giving grants and taxbreaks.

And guess what also,,, nobody cares that they do not know yet what to do with the turbines and solar panels when they degrade:) Solar panels was been around since 40 years and they did not get popular because they break down fast and then become toxic.

I love green too but this green energy trend for the sake of it is nonsense.

Yeah right...

So why are you not setting up panels ? If it's so cheap you would put all those stupid coal miners out of business and help the environment too..

Yes, it is. By the way, do you have the figures supporting that Bitcoin is not turning green? Because data coming from the link says the Bitcoin mining industry uses 56% green energy. A quarter prior to that, the figure was only 36.8%. But everyone is free to think otherwise so that they could remain avid fans of Elon Musk.

The sun is free. The panels are not. Setting it up needs money but it definitely pays off in the long run. That's why it's cheap.

No, it's not turning at all but everyone is free to think like that so they could sleep more comfortable at night.
Btw, so suddenly those renewables are not that cheap for everyone, are cheap only in some conditions, what happened to this?


Cheaper than 80% of the EU, dirty as it can get if we go by the numbers around 15% or so renewable.
But we still pay 1/3 of what German or Danes with their eco madness pay.

Yes, it could have an impact on the environment, but the miners aren't thinking about it. You're right, you won't have to pay for electricity because you have your own renewable energy, but keep in mind that making or setting up your renewable energy is expensive. In the case of solar energy, you must purchase panels and batteries, but this is a one-time payment, so your expenses after a month are only the maintenance of your panels and energy / equiments. I saw in Iceland, I believe, but I'm not sure where, that they're using geothermal energy to mine bitcoins, which is a very smart move.

People realize that Bitcoin mining will have some impact on the environment and may also cause waste of resources. However, choosing Bitcoin green mining is less costly, and sustainable Bitcoin green mining does not need to pay electricity fees, which means Will get higher profits. Renewable energy is safer for users and will not pollute the environment.

Would you not agree that Bitcoin mining is turning green?

I don't mean cheap as a burger. And it is probably cost beneficial to start all those renewable energy setups only if you are mining on a large scale basis.


Probably not? If coal and fuel are cheap, the wind must be cheaper? How's the price of electricity in your place? Is it from green sources or not?

It is no secret that states and their governments are not in the grip of the spread of cryptocurrency and will continue to try to tighten its regulation and circulation in the future. The issue of the high energy consumption of Bitcoin mining and the carbohydrate footprint of the energy it consumes has been raised and governments are happy to seize on it to denigrate not only Bitcoin, but the entire cryptocurrency.
On the other hand, this is very relevant, since we already really see abrupt climate changes as a result of unreasonable human activity. This was previously perceived with skepticism by many, but now the threat has become real. Therefore, this issue has become very serious.

Why would green mining not be a natural trend? Miners are in business to make money and in most countries fossil fuels are increasingly being highly taxed or banned outright due to the damaging pollution they cause to the wider society. Green energy has fairly predictable costs and outputs, as long as the means of production are able to cover their cost and any maintenance then all the extra energy produced is essentially free to the miner. If you scale it up big enough (like wind or solar farms, even hydroelectric dams) then theoretically Bitcoin can provide an outlet for energy that may otherwise be wasted if industrial or domestic demand is low for any reason.

Bitcoin mining, by its very nature of being able to be set up anywhere, can actually subsidize and promote green energy projects in remote locations which would otherwise be uneconomical. It can act as a "buyer of last resort" for electricity which would otherwise be wasted:
You think the environmental impact of recycling old solar panels or wind turbines is higher than the environmental impact of burning billions of tons of coal and oil? Never mind the environmental impact of recycling all the coal and oil mining, transport, and burning machinery and equipment?

First of all Green energy has become a trend of this century and is used by lots of people and even politicians to attract attention to their personalities or even manipulations with peoples decisions. In addition to this green energy is cheaper comparing with electricity for example that is got from stations and with high level of pollution. And Tesla with Elon Musk's tweets played not the last role in all this attention to the green energy among the cryptocurrency miners, hodlers and governmental institutions. So nowadays we see what we see in the crypto and businesses world.

green and cheap is for the utility companies.
all them juicy grants and taxbreaks to go green.. something residents dont get access to to be self sustainable

wow, you've really done a lot of juggling here to make the numbers look the way you want them.

but when I say SCALE I am referring to the people served. USERS. The focus is on people, not things or "value". Things should serve people, not the opposite.  

Cost per dollar makes absolutely no sense. What we need more, two transactions of 10 million usd or one million of 20 usd transactions? Can you see the mistake here?

so the best argument is to compare with other things that spend a lot? it's just an excuse. as bitcoin was the last stage of scientific progress. it's not how science works, it's how religion works.

The same propaganda on every side I'm really getting bored of this shit
Bitcoin consumes only green energy so it's not contributing to pollution, yeah right, what about those coal plants? Crickets!
Tesla cars run without producing gases and all that stuff! What happens with old batteries? Crickets!
Renewables are the future, cheap and not polluting! Why is China paying 3 cents and Germany 30? Crickets!

Marathon is expanding their facility in Montana from 30MW to 100MW and they talk about green energy. Tesla is raising forests to built assembly plants and they talk about being eco-friendly. Let's have concerts to celebrate earth day and burn more energy than if everyone there would have gone to work like on a normal day. Look at me, I've got on board on a $4 million yacht and I'm crossing the Atlantic with zero carbon emissions, you should do the same!


If everything is turning to be so green and cheap, why don't you all get some solar panels and start mining, making everything more decentralized?
Probably because miners receiving really cheap energy from real reliable sources that work 24/7 would put you out of business even before you make the draft for the investment?

If a leader of a government doesn't have a clue, it's okay, but if their advisors and counselors can't come up with anything better than repeating media FUD, that can be a problem.

The estimation of Bitcoin contribution in the global warming(which is very small) is one thing. But what is more important is that Bitcoin mining can go green, and it will eventually, for the most part.

certain stat sites estimate that US 'spends' $10.7trill a year
bitcoin does about $1.05b a day $383b a year

so the scale of value is ~28x

16,500,000,000,000kwh for the us to 'spend' its money
16.5pwh a year
16,500twh a year
1,884gwh per hour(1.88twh per hour)

110exahash /110thash= 1mill s19pro asics at 3.25kwh per 110thash
3,250,000kwh per hour
3.25gwh per hour

so lets see the difference
  dollar        vs      btc
US 1884gw       btc 3.25gw
US $10.7trill     btc $383bill (10.7t is 28x more then $383b)
____________________ (divide the 1884 and 10.7 by 28 to get fiat equivalent to btc value moved cost)
US 67gw          btc 3.25gw
US $383b        btc $383b

so yea a direct comparison for fiat $1 per kw and btc value $1 per kw
the btc is actually ~20x BETTER than fiat

..
as for 'global warming'.. not all countries will get 'warming' .. thats why climate change is a better buzzword. because some countries will see a cooling effect.
as for the inner debates of causes.. yes humans caused it.. but its not only/majorly carbon as the weapon. its actually the alteration of nature to effect the water cycle thats the main factor

(less fresh water naturally flowing on land = less evaporation=less clouds= less cooling and less snow to replenish the poles
- due to (dams)reservoir hoarding. pipes, plumbing, sewers = water unable to be evaporated if its trapped out of the sun)
and yes have 5 litres in a pool(reservoir) vs 5 litres spread out as a thin puddles/streams.. the puddle/stream evaporates more then the pooled reservoir. so yes dam reservoirs actually damage the water cycle compared to just letting the streams and rivers flow over natural unpiped land

Because bitcoin threatens those in power. They don't care if industries such as video games or online pornography are orders of magnitude more wasteful than bitcoin. In fact, all the better! These are products we can tax and make a profit from, and so their environmental impact is irrelevant. But bitcoin comes along and is a direct threat to their monetary monopoly, so it gets disparaged with any little morsel of criticism blown way out of proportion.

Ahh yes, Elon Musk, that great environmental campaigner who launched a car in to space on a rocket just for the lulz.

Fiat is a few several hundred times worse according to this analysis, which is well worth a read: https://www.coindesk.com/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-fiat-money. If bitcoin can become widespread enough to reduce the chances of the next global recession even a little bit, reduce its magnitude, or delay it, then bitcoin would become net carbon negative.

Not true. A few years ago, it became cheaper to build new renewables than it did to build new fossil fuel plants: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/
And a report from last month shows that it is starting to become cheaper to build new renewables from scratch than it is to even continue to operate already existing fossil fuel plants: https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/report-its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-solar-than-to-run-existing-coal-plants-in-china-india-and-most-of-europe/

There is a reason why Bitcoin Mining Consortium was formed. Elon Musk wouldn't stop harping on Bitcoin's energy consumption and as you know, the price dropped rapidly. Given the FUD being spread by one of the more influential personalities, miners definitely want to appease him to try to push the price up again.

It doesn't help that the one thing that is hailed as the currency of the future is facing an issue that is perceived to exacerbate climate change.

It isn't a reason to use renewable energy but it is a reason to tell everyone they're using renewable energy.

Selling it at any price does not mean that it is the cheapest at all, and electricity is not the only factor in mining, there is temperature, location, customs duties, .... etc. Electricity production licenses will encourage miners to change the place if accompanied by more measures, but what happens is that miners build the infrastructure for renewable energies and not exploit the surplus.


Who will bear the cost of recycling? Renewable energies have many negative aspects that have not yet been addressed, and the life span of many mining farms is the next havling.


This may be a convincing reason, so the news that talks about the use of solar energy are the result of these press reports?



Is this reason enough to use renewable energies? What will it benefit them if the media attacks them or stops it?