Stop worrying about how much energy bitcoin uses

August 20, 2018 by Katrina Kelly-Pitou, The Conversation
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The word "bitcoin" is as likely to garnish feverish excitement as it is glaring criticism. The financial community sees speculative promise in the form of trade that currently has little to no regulation. Meanwhile, others argue that it's a distraction that detracts from the overall longevity of U.S. financial institutions.

Bitcoin's has become a recent talking point in the debate. A Forbes article published May 30 indicates that bitcoin dramatically increases global energy consumption – and that electricity is its "Achilles heel."

I am a researcher who studies clean energy technology, specifically the transition toward decarbonized energy systems. I think that the conversation around bitcoin and energy has been oversimplified.

New technologies – such as data centers, computers and before them trains, planes and automobiles – are often energy-intensive. Over time, all of these have become more efficient, a natural progression of any technology: Saving energy equates to saving costs.

By talking specifically about just the consumption of energy alone, I believe many fail to understand one of the most basic benefits of renewable energy systems. Electricity production can increase while still maintaining a minimal impact on the environment. Rather than focusing on how much energy bitcoin uses, the discussion should center around who indeed is producing it – and where their power comes from.

Counting consumption

Unlocking a bitcoin requires an intense amount of computational power. Think of bitcoin as sort of a hidden currency code, where its value is derived by solving a programmable puzzle. Getting through this puzzle requires computer brainpower.

Electricity is 90 percent of the cost to mine bitcoin. As such, uses an exorbitant amount of power: somewhere between an estimated 30 terrawatt hours alone in 2017 alone. That's as much electricity as it takes to power the entire nation of Ireland in one year.

Indeed, this is a lot, but not exorbitant. Banking consumes an estimated 100 terrawatts of power annually. If bitcoin technology were to mature by more than 100 times its current market size, it would still equal only 2 percent of all energy consumption.

Power sources

Bitcoin is certainly consuming an increasing amount of power worldwide, but is it increasing the world's carbon consumption? Bitcoin miners have traditionally set up shop in China, where coal supplies 60 percent of the nation's electricity.

Now, bitcoin mining is exploding in areas with cheap power, like the Pacific Northwest. Power there is mainly cheap due to the massive availability of hydropower, a low-carbon resource.

Bitcoin mining in China, with a largely fossil-based electricity source, may indeed be problematic. China is already one of the world's major contributors of carbon emissions. However, bitcoin mining in Oregon? Not the same thing. Not all types of energy generation are equal in their impact on the environment, nor does the world uniformly rely on the same types of generation across states and markets.

In Europe, for example, Iceland is becoming a popular place for bitcoin mining. That nation relies on nearly 100 percent renewable energy for its production. An abundant supply of geothermal and hydropower energy makes bitcoiners' power demand cheap and nearly irrelevant.

Similarly, in the hydropower-driven Pacific Northwest, miners can still expect to turn a profit without contributing heavily to carbon emissions.

The right discussion

Like many other aspects of the energy industry, bitcoin is not necessarily a "bad guy." It's simply a new, and vaguely understood, industry.

The discussion about energy consumption and bitcoin is, I believe, unfair without discussing the energy intensity of new technologies overall, specifically in data centers.

Rather than discussing the energy consumption of bitcoin generally, people should be discussing the carbon production of bitcoin, and understanding whether certain mining towns are adding to an already large environmental burden.

Although there has been extensive discussion in the media of bitcoin's energy consumption, I'm not aware of any studies that actually calculate the comparative carbon footprint of the bitcoin process.

Global electricity consumption is going up overall. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that world use will increase nearly 28 percent over the next two decades. But increasing is bad only if we aren't shifting toward less carbon-dense power production. So far, it seems that only miners are currently shifting toward cleaner parts of the world.

So perhaps people should quit criticizing for its energy intensity and start criticizing states and nations for still providing new industries with dirty supplies instead.

Explore further: Spotlight glare on Bitcoin as numbers show mining's energy use

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Ready-to-use recipe for turning plant waste into gasoline

September 25, 2018

Bioscience engineers at KU Leuven, Belgium, already knew how to make gasoline in the laboratory from plant waste such as sawdust. Now, the researchers have developed a road map, as it were, for industrial cellulose gasoline.

6 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

barakn
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2018
Now, bitcoin mining is exploding in areas with cheap power, like the Pacific Northwest. Power there is mainly cheap due to the massive availability of hydropower, a low-carbon resource.
The Pacific Northwest is tied to a massive area ranging from most of British Columbia and Alberta in the north to a tiny chunk of Mexico in the south by an electrical grid known as the Western Interconnection. This is why companies with names like Puget Sound Energy Inc., Portland General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, and NorthWestern Energy are co-owners of the coal fired power plant in Colstrip, MT, which prides itself as being "consistently ranked as one of the lowest-cost fuel plants in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, a regional member of the North American Electricity Reliability Council that includes all the western states and the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia." This is greenwashing of energy use in the Pacific Northwest because some of it is hydropower.
barakn
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2018
Hydropower in the Pacific NW, even if low carbon, has other environmental hazards, including the flooding of habitat used by terrestrial species, interruption of spawning runs of salmon, sturgeon, and other fish, impoundment of heavy metals from mine drainage, acting as the seed sites for invasive species (illegally introduced by "bucket biologists" or inadvertantly introduced by attachment to watercraft), etc.. Also there is increased competition for the water used by hydropower with other users as the area suffers from a greater number of droughts, increasingly warmer summers, and reduced winter snowpack. Also not appreciated is that the link at the end of the sentence "Similarly, in the hydropower-driven Pacific Northwest, miners can still expect to turn a profit without contributing heavily to carbon emissions" is to an article about a cryptocurrency miner in Alberta using energy mostly derived from natural gas, not hydropower.
barakn
not rated yet Aug 20, 2018
Also lost in the discussion is that cryptocurrency mining centers run 24/7 and therefore rely more on the traditional base-load power sources like coal and nuclear and less on intermittent renewables like wind and solar power.
del2
not rated yet Aug 20, 2018
bitcoin mining uses an exorbitant amount of power: somewhere between an estimated 30 terrawatt hours alone in 2017 alone. ...
Indeed, this is a lot, but not exorbitant.

So is it exorbitant, or not? The article contradicts itself.
(And it's terawatt, not terrawatt.)
Sunbeam
not rated yet Aug 21, 2018
bitcoin mining uses an exorbitant amount of power: somewhere between an estimated 30 terrawatt hours alone in 2017 alone. ...
Indeed, this is a lot, but not exorbitant.

So is it exorbitant, or not? The article contradicts itself.
(And it's terawatt, not terrawatt.)

Are you focusing on the words chosen for saying that or on the contents? i think on just on the words.
Sunbeam
not rated yet Aug 21, 2018
Also lost in the discussion is that cryptocurrency mining centers run 24/7 and therefore rely more on the traditional base-load power sources like coal and nuclear and less on intermittent renewables like wind and solar power.

By that is like you're assuming that the bitcoin network is runned by only one or few subject and that if they stop mining that the entire network will be shut down. Mining is not a job, mining is a business for the miners, they don't look at sustaining the network, they just want to make profit even for certain hours a day connected to a renewable enercìgy plant when the energy is in excess and than is cheaper to buy.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.