I had unexpectedly access to internet today
so I can answer to @freekurt 
First thanks for the articles. I read them fully.
A few things bother me in this article.
digiconomist …
A recent report into crypto energy use, done by Coinshares, which is the only honest, data-driven report ever to be undertaken[4]
I just don’t know what to say … Talk about bias…
Ok I understand, so I won’t cite any digiconomist data from now now on.
This article was published the 29 Jan. ( 2019 as it doesn’t appear in the archive.org before ).
So indeed this great website https://www.cbeci.org/ didn’t exist
But this great report was already published , but only for a month, so maybe it wasn’t easily findable on the internet : https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternative-finance/downloads/2018-12-ccaf-2nd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking.pdf
Disclaimer :
I haven’t read the whole “report”
https://coinshares.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Mining-Whitepaper-Final.pdf
For a few reasons :
- This embedded content is from a site that does not comply with the Do Not Track (DNT) setting now enabled on your browser.
- I have to agree to weird Terms of Conditions
- The description :
This report isn’t perfect. It doesn’t pretend to have all of the necessary input data, but at least it starts with actual inputs and is based on tangible research, not some ass-backward, unscientific, biased guesstimate.
If you insist I’ll read it , if you think that there are some interesting arguments.
https://medium.com/coinshares/rae-cost-of-mining-misconceptions-e3fcff1ce726
1. Bitcoin’s Energy Usage Is A Major Component Of Its Network Security Model
… doesn’t concern us …
2. Prior Reports On Bitcoin’s Energy Footprint Were Greatly Exaggerated
Our calculations show prior reports overestimated by a factor of nearly two*.
Where our research produced an estimate of 35 TWh in mid-May, prior estimates had that at nearly double — 65 TWh
- Newer reports contradicts this ( see cbeci.org )
- But even it’s the case, it’s still enormous far too much
- So at this date (2018 ?) it didn’t used as much energy as Chile in 2014 which had a population of 17 millions , it just used as much energy as Denmark in 2014, a super rich country which had the population of 5 millions ( List of countries by electricity consumption - Wikipedia )
Don’t forget we are comparing the energy of just using some bitcoins transactions compared to the energy used by a whole country : so including energy used by industries, including by the inhabitants use to live for a whole year.
I would hope it would use less.
3. Hydro Power Actually Appears To Be The Primary Electricity Source Of The Bitcoin Mining Network
hmmm, if we read https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternative-finance/downloads/2018-12-ccaf-2nd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking.pdf page 84
Note: data is based on a dataset of 128 hashing facilities around the globe. Megawatt figures are available for 93 facilities.
Identified facilities draw on average 28% of their energy requirements from renewables
In the FAQ of cbeci.org it says
More recently, studies have shown that a growing share of total electricity consumption originates from renewable energy sources such as hydro, solar, and wind power. However, estimates are varying widely, ranging from approximately 20% 1 of the total energy mix to more than 70%.2
Notice that the 70% estimate is from Coinshares (2019) The Bitcoin Mining Network
4. ‘Migratory Miners’ Seasonally Move To Wherever Conditions Are Most Suitable (Profitable)
And ?
5. Annually, Network Hashrate Grows By ~300%, While Chip Efficiency Grows By ~80% And Chip Cost Per Hash Falls by ~50%
This means that every year, a miner’s dollar buys them nearly twice as much hashpower as the year before (CAPEX), and that new hashpower draws only a little more than half the electricity (OPEX).
(It also means it produces a lot of electronical waste.)
And ? Does it actually means that bitcoin will consume less per capita ?
What does it mean in the real world ? In 5 years, in 10 years ?
If someone can explain to me what is the implications, please do, because I read this it seems to me it’s an empty argument, but maybe i’m mistaken.
6. We’re Observing Increasing Geographical Distribution Among Miners
In the wake of the unfriendly policies towards Bitcoin miners adopted by the Chinese government we are observing an increase in miners setting up shop in the Nordic countries, Canada and north-western United States.
Common to all these locations are cool climates, availability of cheap renewable energy, high-speed internet and business-friendly governments.
Great ! ( and that’s true) but which percentage ?
And yeah , it means maybe less cooling, but does it means more renewables ?
https://medium.com/coinshares/beware-of-lazy-research-c828c900b7d5
For reference, there are approximately 85m PlayStation 4, 40m Xbox One and 15m Nintendo Wii U consoles distributed among global households (see our report for full list of sources). Their weighted average gameplay power draw is approximately 120W.
Assuming these gaming systems are played on a modern 40’’ LED TV drawing only 40W, for 4 hours a day, and idling for 20 hours a day, at a weighted average of 10W, they alone draw more power (4.9GW) than the entire bitcoin mining network.
I just put this argument because it made me angry.
Let’s compare gaming systems of 85 millions people using a system every day (!)for four hours (!) not bothering to click on the off button of their multisockets to bitcoins with only a few millions active users …
The magnitude in China alone is staggering. According to Reuters, citing the provincial governor Ruan Chengfa, in Yunnan Province alone 30 TWh of hydro power is wasted every year. Again, the entire Bitcoin mining network draws an annualised approximate 41 TWh at current rates.
Things are not much better in neighbouring Sichuan — home of an estimated 42% of all Bitcoin hashpower — where another Reuters article explains that the province’s total hydro capacity of 75 GW (versus Bitcoin’s 4.7 GW draw), is more than double the capacity of its grid! The implication being that power on the order of hundreds of TWh are wasted every year.
Actually, I find it’s the only interesting argument of all the articles.
( But remember argument 6 from the other article. everyone it going out of China which is a good thing, even though it seems China has surplus energy …)
But first thing first
( if you see https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternative-finance/downloads/2018-12-ccaf-2nd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking.pdf)
- Xinjiang which uses coal, inner mongolia and hebei all produces far more or about the same for Hebei as Sichuan. ( Yuhuan isn’t even on the map)
For example, in Yunnan province in south-west China, wind providers claim that they were required to compensate coal-fired power plants whose power was not being fully used. As Nick Mabey, the chief executive of the E3G think tank, has said, “China’s inflexible coal power stations means that it wastes 40 percent of the clean wind power it generates in some regions.”
Basically it seems, that you can only use wind ( and maybe hydro too) only if coal is fully used ! ( Maybe I’m overinterpreting things, I tried to find more but it’s really difficult)
For Sichuan , I found some articles ( but really old more than 5 years), and again it’s really difficult to find some information of what’s happenong now
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6347-The-battle-over-Yunnan-s-hydropower .
But basically due to some corruption and inner fighting, there is lots of waste of electricity.
Until the situation is resolved, maybe mining Bitcoins in Sichuan is actually ok. Even though, I think it would be better to use this surplus of electricty to produce some hydrogen like in some scottish islands How hydrogen is transforming these tiny Scottish islands - BBC Future
Okay, leaving now, I’ll answer to @webDev afterwards. Brain is burning.
