22 ms·

If bitcoin would be fully powered by renewables, do you still think its energy consumption would be a problem?

by nickez 5y ago

merlinscholz 5y ago
Not the energy consumption in itself, but the amount of heat and physical electronic waste generated certainly is.
- skohan 5y ago
  Yes it's not like solar panels are condensed out of the air with zero waste. They have to be manufactured, in a process which almost certainly isn't carbon neutral yet. The materials used to make them have to be extracted from somewhere. They're transported to the installation site on the back of diesel-burning trucks. Cleaner energy sources are a necessity, but simply reducing consumption will always have the best impact on sustainability.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Depends. Could those renewables go to other applications? If so, then using them for BTC means that somebody else must use carbon. If instead the renewables were located in places where it was not possible to move the energy to more useful locations or if the entire world ran on zero-emission power, then it'd be much less of a concern. I'm happy to let BTC win if it means that global warming is halted. But if worldwide net zero emissions is a prerequisite for BTC being considered non-wasteful then that's a tall order.
betterunix2 5y ago
Yes. Energy spent on Bitcoin is energy not spent on something else, even in a world where everything is powered by renewable energy. We do not live in a world where everything is renewable, and renewable energy spent on Bitcoin means whatever non-renewable power is being used elsewhere instead of being eliminated. It is also a myth that renewables have no negative environmental impact: metals have to be mined/smelted/etc., chemicals of various kinds are used, and there is waste from the manufacturing processes. Ideally we would be working towards more efficient technologies that use less energy to accomplish whatever task (and for the most part we have been doing that).
dukeyukey 5y ago
Yes, because those renewables could be powering people's homes and productive equipment, or powering conventional payment systems with plenty capacity left over. It's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but plenty of crypto exists that doesn't need this much power.
- doomroot 5y ago
  Energy for the home and nearly every other electricity demanding enterprise easily outbids bitcoin miners. There’s a reason they have to go the there ridiculously remote places to set up operations.
maxerickson 5y ago
Proof of work will always be an expensive way to secure a ledger, with little in the way of real advantages. "Distributed" sounds nice, but it isn't really that valuable in the end.
- noxer 5y ago
  PoW doesn't even lead to good distribution as we can see since a few years and more importantly its not needed. We have Federated Byzantine Agreement (FBA) "blockchians" since like 8 years and it beats PoW by any metric.
plater 5y ago
All energy generation is bad for the environment, just more or less bad. Solar cells and wind power might be "renewable", but it requires a lot of metals and material to build (and also energy), they disturb natural habitat etc. They are much better than coal, oil and gas, but they are not harmless. It's better to avoid using energy if possible than using renewable energy.
- bingbong70 5y ago
  Cavemen used very little energy before the discovery of fire. Are you prescribing a return to that state? >>>Response to Dan added here due to rate limit. > waste power Infinite energy in the universe and everything mankind has achieved has been in large part due to energy consumption. The idea that we should now stop that trend is antihuman/antihuman-progress at its core. Let the individual/market decide the best uses for energy... not your money = not your choice. BTW off-planet mining using the sun/stars is a great idea for the future and doesn't require them to be blacked out.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    No of course not, that reading isn't any more accurate than it would be to say that you're arguing that we should set up a Dyson sphere around our sun to black out the earth and mine Bitcoin in the vast dead emptiness of space for all eternity[0]. Be careful not to inflate arguments into completely separate positions. What GP is saying is that switching to renewables doesn't make all of the negative externalities of wasting power go away. You shouldn't extrapolate out on that to some grand view of the world that says we should never use technology. It just means we shouldn't waste power, and we shouldn't use "solar" as an excuse to waste power. [0]: After all, Dyson spheres are powered by renewable energy.
    - bingbong70 5y ago
      > waste power > not a battery What's a better way to losslessly and securely store human labor/time for future use? Almost everything else (fiat, gold, silver, real estate, etc...) that exists is debased/debasable, deteriorates, or loses value. The above arguments completely hinge on energy being "wasted". Lossless labor/time storage isn't "waste" to market participants seeing a need for it and putting their hard earned money behind it. Bitcoin basically turns one of the hardest to counterfeit things in the universe, energy, into money. How else can you achieve lossless storage without a trustless secured environment (the bitcoin network)? Any multi-decade/multi-century solution that market participants should focus on instead?

If bitcoin would be fully powered by renewables, do you still think its energy consumption would be a problem?

by nickez 5y ago

If bitcoin would be fully powered by renewables, do you still think its energy consumption would be a problem?

merlinscholz 5y ago

Not the energy consumption in itself, but the amount of heat and physical electronic waste generated certainly is.

skohan 5y ago
Yes it's not like solar panels are condensed out of the air with zero waste. They have to be manufactured, in a process which almost certainly isn't carbon neutral yet. The materials used to make them have to be extracted from somewhere. They're transported to the installation site on the back of diesel-burning trucks. Cleaner energy sources are a necessity, but simply reducing consumption will always have the best impact on sustainability.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Depends. Could those renewables go to other applications? If so, then using them for BTC means that somebody else must use carbon. If instead the renewables were located in places where it was not possible to move the energy to more useful locations or if the entire world ran on zero-emission power, then it'd be much less of a concern. I'm happy to let BTC win if it means that global warming is halted. But if worldwide net zero emissions is a prerequisite for BTC being considered non-wasteful then that's a tall order.

betterunix2 5y ago

Yes. Energy spent on Bitcoin is energy not spent on something else, even in a world where everything is powered by renewable energy. We do not live in a world where everything is renewable, and renewable energy spent on Bitcoin means whatever non-renewable power is being used elsewhere instead of being eliminated. It is also a myth that renewables have no negative environmental impact: metals have to be mined/smelted/etc., chemicals of various kinds are used, and there is waste from the manufacturing processes. Ideally we would be working towards more efficient technologies that use less energy to accomplish whatever task (and for the most part we have been doing that).

dukeyukey 5y ago

Yes, because those renewables could be powering people's homes and productive equipment, or powering conventional payment systems with plenty capacity left over. It's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but plenty of crypto exists that doesn't need this much power.

doomroot 5y ago
Energy for the home and nearly every other electricity demanding enterprise easily outbids bitcoin miners. There’s a reason they have to go the there ridiculously remote places to set up operations.

maxerickson 5y ago

Proof of work will always be an expensive way to secure a ledger, with little in the way of real advantages. "Distributed" sounds nice, but it isn't really that valuable in the end.

noxer 5y ago
PoW doesn't even lead to good distribution as we can see since a few years and more importantly its not needed. We have Federated Byzantine Agreement (FBA) "blockchians" since like 8 years and it beats PoW by any metric.

plater 5y ago

All energy generation is bad for the environment, just more or less bad. Solar cells and wind power might be "renewable", but it requires a lot of metals and material to build (and also energy), they disturb natural habitat etc. They are much better than coal, oil and gas, but they are not harmless. It's better to avoid using energy if possible than using renewable energy.

bingbong70 5y ago
Cavemen used very little energy before the discovery of fire. Are you prescribing a return to that state? >>>Response to Dan added here due to rate limit. > waste power Infinite energy in the universe and everything mankind has achieved has been in large part due to energy consumption. The idea that we should now stop that trend is antihuman/antihuman-progress at its core. Let the individual/market decide the best uses for energy... not your money = not your choice. BTW off-planet mining using the sun/stars is a great idea for the future and doesn't require them to be blacked out.
- danShumway 5y ago
  No of course not, that reading isn't any more accurate than it would be to say that you're arguing that we should set up a Dyson sphere around our sun to black out the earth and mine Bitcoin in the vast dead emptiness of space for all eternity[0]. Be careful not to inflate arguments into completely separate positions. What GP is saying is that switching to renewables doesn't make all of the negative externalities of wasting power go away. You shouldn't extrapolate out on that to some grand view of the world that says we should never use technology. It just means we shouldn't waste power, and we shouldn't use "solar" as an excuse to waste power. [0]: After all, Dyson spheres are powered by renewable energy.
  - bingbong70 5y ago
    > waste power > not a battery What's a better way to losslessly and securely store human labor/time for future use? Almost everything else (fiat, gold, silver, real estate, etc...) that exists is debased/debasable, deteriorates, or loses value. The above arguments completely hinge on energy being "wasted". Lossless labor/time storage isn't "waste" to market participants seeing a need for it and putting their hard earned money behind it. Bitcoin basically turns one of the hardest to counterfeit things in the universe, energy, into money. How else can you achieve lossless storage without a trustless secured environment (the bitcoin network)? Any multi-decade/multi-century solution that market participants should focus on instead?