
Bitcoin causing CO2 emissions comparable to Hamburg - conse_lad
https://www.tum.de/nc/en/about-tum/news/press-releases/details/35499/
======
hueving
Before anyone makes excuses along the lines of "it's renewable from remote
dams", that energy could could have always been used for something more
productive. If it weren't for Bitcoin, they would be incentivized to build a
datacenter there, build a smelting plant there, or even just build the
transmission lines to get it to the grid.

Using renewable energy for Bitcoin takes that renewable energy out of the
supply. How much coal is being burned in China because electricity pours into
Bitcoin miners instead of onto a grid?

~~~
mrb
Consider this: in Sichuan and Yunnan, the two most hydro-rich provinces of
China, despite the high concentration of miners over there due to cheap
electricity, there is such an surplus of electricity that they abandon over a
hundred TWh of hydropower every year. This abandoned water is literally run
through the dam without spinning the turbines. This is more than the worldwide
consumption of electricity of Bitcoin.

This is a result of mostly inadequate grid infrastructure that will take
decades to solve.

------
knocte
I'll just leave this other side of the story:
[https://cointelegraph.com/news/study-over-74-of-bitcoin-
mini...](https://cointelegraph.com/news/study-over-74-of-bitcoin-mining-is-
powered-by-renewable-energy)

~~~
nikanj
Energy is energy. If that energy wasn’t wasted mining bitcoin, it could power
any of the other consumers of electricity.

~~~
mrb
Mining farms are by nature located in areas with cheap electricity, ie. where
supply exceeds demand. So it isn't taking away energy from other consumers.
For example:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20194135](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20194135)

------
iamnothere
It's a tradeoff, like every technology. Streaming video infrastructure and
consumption probably creates more CO2 than all crypto put together.

People who don't like the underlying premise of Bitcoin (a currency outside of
government control) will tend to highlight the negatives, while people who
like the premise of Bitcoin will support the positives. Narratives such as the
one presented in this article are an attempt to sway the
undecided/uninterested to the "anti-Bitcoin" side. Indeed, the conclusion of
the article suggests "regulating" cryptocurrency as a method of controlling
emissions, exposing this as another attempt to block the spread of
cryptocurrency.

------
mrb
Here is the link to the original study:
[https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30255-7](https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351\(19\)30255-7)

I was part of the peer-review process on this study. High quality research,
although they made a last minute edit that IMHO lead them to overestimate CO2
emissions by 50% (15 vs 22 MtCO2/yr):
[https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/113943906857019392...](https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1139439068570193921)

------
thrwway483246
What makes me so sad is that bitcoin is an algorithmic solution to a well-
defined problem. I can imagine some lucky genius might one day solve the exact
same problem better. But the damage is done.

The whole planet is suffering for an algorithm that is not being improved
quickly enough.

I want to show the suffering here. Imagine all the arithmetic that was done in
Roman numerals, because it was the state of the art. I can really feel the
burden of this algorithn. Maybe there is something better.

~~~
knocte
Compare it to the amount of CO2 that the banking sector is emitting now. All
those pointless buildings, branches, offices, computers, employees going to
work everyday. To me, bitcoin feels much more efficient.

Sure btc is not perfect, and humanity might come up with something better
soon. Until then, let's switch to the better technology that exists today.

~~~
mytherin
The amount of transactions performed by bitcoin is laughably low. It performs
around 10 transactions per second. This is not even enough to handle the
transactions of a small city, yet it consumes as much electricity as an ENTIRE
large city. If the banking industry was anywhere close to this inefficient it
would be responsible for almost all CO2 emissions worldwide.

~~~
knocte
Look into layer2 technologies (e.g. Lightning network), scalability is a
solved problem.

------
mindcandy
In case you were wondering what the carbon footprints of the top cities were:
[http://citycarbonfootprints.info/](http://citycarbonfootprints.info/)

    
    
        Urban Cluster Footprint(Mt CO2)
        Seoul 276.1 ±51.8
        Guangzhou 272 ±46.2
        New York 233.5 ±75.4
        Hong Kong SAR 208.5 ±37.8
        Los Angeles 196.4 ±43.7
        Shanghai 181.0 ±44.6
        Country of Singapore 161.1 ±34.1
        Chicago 152.9 ±37.2
        Tokyo / Yokohama 132.8 ±21.4
        Riyadh 118.8 ±26.4
        Dubai 110.8 ±31.0
        Wuxi 110.4 ±25.8
        Johannesburg 105.2 ±19.9
        Tehran 104.4 ±28.2
        Moscow 99.5 ±22.5
        London 98.9 ±21.8
        Benha 87.2 ±15.6
        Beijing 83.7 ±19.1
        Jakarta 83.7 ±15.6
        Al - Ahmadi 80.6 ±19.3
        Miami 80.3 ±21.9
        Samut Prakan 80.0 ±17.9
        Paris 78.0 ±25.5
        Dallas 76.9 ±16.0
        Tianjin 71.4 ±20.4
        Istanbul 70.9 ±16.0
        Detroit 70.6 ±15.4
        Philadelphia 70.2 ±19.5
        San Jose 70.0 ±19.7
    

Hamburg is ranked #129 at 18Mt. By these numbers, Bitcoin's 22Mt is closer to
Kansas City at #106. Kansas City and larger cities sum up to 5001.3 MT.

------
ashnyc
I am tired of people of coming up with these nonsense comparison. Bitcoin co2
emissions is the same as Hamburg. It uses more electricity than Las vegas etc.
Have they accounted for the amount co2 the food that 1.8 million people in
hamburg consume.

~~~
NotPaidToPost
I think the underlying assumption in those comparisons is that Bitcoin is
essentially useless.

So while Hamburg produces CO2 because of all the people and economic activity
going there, Bitcoin produces the same amount for no actual benefits. In that
case the comparison does illustrate the amount of waste.

Now, on the other hand if you're of the opinion that Bitcoin is something of
value that makes a positive difference and produces something useful then the
comparison does look random and nonsensical.

------
superkuh
To secure an international currency this is exceptionally efficient. Compare
it to the economic and energy costs of protecting a fiat currency with an army
or allying with a country that has an army.

~~~
mytherin
How would the need of an army disappear for a country that would use bitcoin
as its national currency? I really see no relation between the two. The
currency that is in use has no effects on an invading force.

This xkcd seems relevant as well:
[https://xkcd.com/538/](https://xkcd.com/538/)

~~~
superkuh
>How would the need of an army disappear for a country that would use bitcoin
as its national currency?

Bitcoin is not a national currency. It is an international currency. It has
not tied to any one country so your question doesn't have meaning.

But, lets humor it anyway. Bitcoin would continue to operate just fine if a
country that was using it as their national currency (an absurd premise) was
invaded. There are plenty of other countries. This would not be true of a fiat
currency. The fiat currency would lose it's value and be controlled.

