Replying to Avatar Felipe

Turns out the claim "Bitcoin energy usage is comparable to the global energy use of tumble dryers" is wrong. It's comparable to tumble dryers in the US. Source: Cambridge

Cambridge revised down Bitcoin energy estimates. I quote Daniel Batten:

"Key points:

1. CCAF model overestimated by 16.8% in 2021, and 10.2% in 2022. This is in alignment with my previous research where I suggested earlier this year that their model was overestimating by 20.6% https://batcoinz.com/improving-our-estimate-of-bitcoin-energy-consumption/…

2. Clear evidence that GreenpeaceUSA's claim that Bitcoin used "as much energy as Sweden" was incorrect, and was based on CCAF historical overstatements

3. CCAF says explicitly that based on new estimates: Bitcoin energy use is "comparable to ... tumble dryers in the US"

4. CCAF has not yet revised its emissions estimates beyond the direct impact of revised energy consumption.

5. They are still overestimating emissions by 67.6% due to emission intensity calculations that are both overestimated, and out-of-date (have not been updated since Jan 2022). This is an improvement upon the previous estimates which were out 106% (https://batcoinz.com/accurately-dynamically-calculating-bitcoin-network-emissions/…)

6. Re: 5 above, CCAF acknowledges: "Emerging concepts we have yet to consider but could reasonably be expected to lower our emission estimates include the potential to mitigate methane emissions by mining operations collocating next to oil fields and utilizing otherwise flared natural gas, using and subsequently sealing orphaned gas wells, and mitigating methane emissions from landfills, but also extend to other novel concepts such as waste-heat recovery.

7. While there is still much work to do on the emissions estimate side, CCAF should be praised for updating their model, which is now very much in line with what those with up-to-date industry data such as Luxor, Marathon, Blockware, Coinmetrics, the Bitcoin Mining council and I have been using for some time. They also deserve praise for their transparency about historical overestimations, and transparency about the factors not yet considered that could "reasonably be expected to lower our emission estimates". I agree: 57 M t CO2e/year will reduce to a figure more like my model which says 34 Mt CO2e/year once the impact of off-grid miners and methane mitigation is factored in.

8. Key details from the CCAF report Full report: https://jbs.cam.ac.uk/2023/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/

"The backbone of our previous CBECI methodology was the assumption that every profitable hardware model released less than 5 years ago equally fuelled the total network hashrate. This, however, led to a disproportionally large number of older devices compared to newer ones in our assumed hardware distribution"

…we decided to thoroughly re-examine the ASIC mining hardware distribution generated by our previous CBECI model and cross-check the results against other metrics from publicly available data. We found that more recently released equipment appeared to be underrepresented, and equipment nearing the end of its lifecycle was overrepresented.

…we will explore the consequences of these changes when applied retroactively. The first and most noticeable discrepancy appears in 2021, where our previous CBECI model estimated an electricity consumption of 104.0 TWh, 15.0 TWh higher than the revised model estimate (89.0 TWh). The 2022 estimate was adjusted downward by 9.8 TWh, from 105.3 TWh to 95.5 TWh. To put this in perspective, the revised figure is comparable to the electricity consumption of countries like Belgium (83 TWh) or the Netherlands (113 TWh), [31] the energy use of tumble dryers in the US (108 TWh)

Emerging concepts we have yet to consider but could reasonably be expected to lower our emission estimates include the potential to mitigate methane emissions by mining operations collocating next to oil fields and utilizing otherwise flared natural gas, [32] using and subsequently sealing orphaned gas wells, [33] and mitigating methane emissions from landfills, [34] but also extend to other novel concepts such as waste-heat recovery. [35]"

Source: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2023/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/

& Daniel Batten (Twitter)

Narrative is shifting!

#zapathon #bitcoin #plebchain #grownostr #zap #memes #pleb #bitcoinenergyfud

Amazing overview - thanks you Felipe!

I believe that it is a good thing that revisions like this are published by academic institutions, albeit that their initial overestimation was likely fueled by the "outrage economy" and an institutional imperative to stay relevant at all costs, and to remain part of the conversation.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The energy narrative around Bitcoin is a fascinating one, isn't it? So much negative news and yelling and yet so much opportunity and net positive impact.

Unfortunately, many financial influencers with a lot of following, mainstream media but also politicians are still citing and using the dishonest thesis of Alex de Vries aka. Digiconomist.

I am happy the narrative is shifting a bit.

Yeah, the shifting narrative is important!

I think the shift will continue towards sanity and reasonableness now that so much of the crypto-shitcoin-bs-bubble has started to subside and fade. It should create more space for honest conversation around Bitcoin, without it being lumped in with all the other fad-crap.

It is definitely looking up.