Without fanfare, Bitcoin just became the 1st global industry where network growth rockets while emissions plummet
This chart says:
Policy makers should consider Bitcoin an example to other industries; institutional investors should feel comfortable with its ESG status
Grams of CO2e emissions per KWh.
eVs by contrast emit around 480g CO2e per KWh and that has reduced barely at all in the last 3 years.
That’s part of it. Other factors are that bitcoin uses a lot more sustainable energy now compared to 3 years ago
New All Time Low
For the first time ever Bitcoin emission intensity has dropped below 300g/KWh
* This is less than half it’s emission intensity in just over 3 years
* No other industry is reducing its emission intensity as fast
25th piece of positive press on bitcoin mining in mainstream media this year
The untold story:
In 2021, Argentina were forced to swallow anti-Bitcoin clauses in taking their IMF loan
Not only did the IMF loan fail to steady their economy, the anti-Bitcoin clause denied Argentines a way to save their money during hyperinflation
Price of carbon on voluntary markets is down this year.
That’s going to make it harder to get vented methane based projects funded (they won’t return as much to investors).
Anyone know of any good philanthropic climatefunds that are happy to take lower returns if they are measurably saving the world?
I think someone maybe didn’t like what I was posting !
A pleb who works in cybersecurity kindly reached out on Twitter. Just followed up with him to see what can be done.
In the meantime this is a 95% complete archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20230414010156/https://batcoinz.com/
Thanks. Maybe some good security tips so it doesn’t happen again!
In the meantime there is a backup here https://web.archive.org/web/20230410182445/https://batcoinz.com/
My website Batcoinz.com where I published my Bitcoin research has just been DDOS attacked.
The difference between Cambridge (CCAF) and Bitcoin Mining Council (BMC) data on sustainable energy use of the Bitcoin Network is primarily due to CCAF underreporting, not BMC over-reporting of sustainable energy use, as many in the media have assumed.
Evidence:
Cambridge (CCAF) to their credit acknowledge openly that their sample represents less than half the total data-set and does not include flare-gas and off-grid mining that could "reasonably be expected to reduce emissions".
"Sample may not be sufficiently representative:
The Bitcoin mining map is based on an extrapolation of a sample of mining pool data. This sample may not be fully representative as it (i) represents less than half of Bitcoin’s total hashrate"
https://ccaf.io/cbeci/mining_map/methodology
Also
"Our estimates do not account for any activities that could reasonably be expected to reduce emissions, such as using flare-gas, off-grid (behind the meter) Bitcoin mining, waste heat recovery or carbon offsetting."
https://ccaf.io/cbeci/ghg/methodology
The conclusion when we factor in the missing data: Bitcoin runs on at least 52.6% sustainable energy.
source: http://batcoinz.com/BEEST
Are there other problems with the Cambridge data?
Yes, several shortcomings.
The mining map is now 16 months out of date (matters a lot because Kazakhstan mining is now a shadow of what it was)
Average Joules/Terahash calculation upon which their model is based is overstated. I’ve triangulated this with Mara, Luxor and Blockware who all have a very similar (and lower) calculation based on more accurate and up-to-date data about actual miner mix (more efficient than Cambridge assumptions)
There’s other issues too. But those are the main ones that lead to the host of following flow on effects
- coal incorrectly identified as major energy source
- bitcoin sustainability mix incorrectly labelled sub-50%
- bitcoin network incorrectly identified as not trending more sustainable since the China-ban
- emission intensity incorrectly overstated and labelled as increasing
- emissions per annum figure (obtained by multiplying 2 overstated figures: % fossil fuel x energy consumption ) is overstated by a factor of 2x
The eco-warrior magazine One Green Planet is the bell weather for the wider environmental movement.
They once published consistently negative articles on Bitcoin Mining.
2023 marked a transition. They just published their second cautiously positive piece of coverage of sustainable Bitcoin mining
Slowly then suddenly
https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/bhutans-secret-sustainable-crypto-himalayas/
Tradefi banking uses 56x more energy than bitcoin mining (I posted a link on this a couple of weeks ago)
I often say that if you want inflexible power producers (like solar and wind that you can’t ramp up when you need them like coal and gas) you have to have flexible customers. And bitcoin mining is the world’s most flexible customer.
Otherwise if you don’t have flexible customers, you’re stuck with needing flexible generators (coal and gas) so take your pick: no renewable energy transition without bitcoin mining.
Typo. Meant to say 20 mins of power.
Bitcoin could be the greatest ESG asset of all time
Ben von Wong (Skull of Satoshi artist)
“If BTC miners help to invest in renewables like wind & solar to move the world off a reliance on fossil fuels then the GP campaign will have nothing to run on.”
But they do. This is exactly what Brad Jones (former CEO of Texas’ grid) recently confirmed.
The problem is not that bitcoin mining doesn’t help the renewable transition, it’s that ignorance, unwillingness to learn or challenge one’s own first impressions and misinformation have prevented most people from seeing how much bitcoin mining is already helping the renewable transition
Nigeria’s Bitcoin adoption rate is growing
Breakdown in trust of central govt and central banks is driving it.
Just as Satoshi predicted.
3600000 J in a KWh so that amount of energy is 4.2million KWh or 4.2 GWh.
Current power of bitcoin network is 12 GW, so that would provide 20th a of power.