Some data for the PoW FUD. #data #PoW #FUD


Some info for the PoW FUD.

See Source

Share this post

Comments (29)

  • Slapshot382 Reply

    Let’s remember here. I would say to not even engage in the MSM bitcoin created energy “debate”. Don’t stoop to their level.

    Like others have said, bitcoin is just using electricity (a utility offered by energy companies) and harnessing that electricity to do whatever it wants. Just as any other business, machine, electronic does when we plug it into a socket.

    Don’t debate whether it emits more or less, it’s where the energy companies are deriving their electricity from that matters!

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • GenghisBanned Reply

    So much wrong in this graph… I’ll only say carbon emissions isn’t the Earth’s thermostat.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • jesperking Reply

    Now look up the US military

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • jt7855 Reply

    The FUD about PoW mining isn’t about energy consumption. It about those against BTC and PoW attempting to spin a narrative to turn people against the industry. Similar complaints about gold mining occurred, when there was a gold standard.
    BTC and PoW could be ran on 100% renewables and they would still criticize the industry.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • css555 Reply

    You just compared the energy usage of the global aviation industry to the energy usage for bitcoin. In absolute terms. How does this make sense? What point are you trying to prove. Please explain.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • altaccount1943 Reply

    The fact bitcoin is in the same order of magnitude of the global banking system for pollution or data centers is really bad. Billions of people rely on banks and data centers, a very small number of people actually rely on bitcoin

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • mghicho Reply

    Why don’t look the energy per transaction and compare that between bitcoin and “global banking industry” ?

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • Keman2000 Reply

    Most of these are mature industries that are massively used by the public and industry, while bitcoin is barely being used. If bitcoin ever were to become the number one financial resource, it would be dozens if not hundreds of time more of an impact.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • mybed54 Reply

    Tbf this is a strawman.

    Bitcoin mining is still doing some harm to the environment. It’s not “okay” because it’s doing less than other industries.

    Our priority should be switching to clean energy ASAP.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • Omega3568 Reply

    Let’s go after the tumble dryer industry

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • MaximumStudent1839 Reply

    A whole lot of you don’t understand the issue of PoW. The way it is done in practice is extremely wasteful. Ideally, PoW should help decentralization to protect BTC from censorship and keep the network resilient.

    Nowadays, everyone and their dog is migrating to Texas or some other place in America to set up another industrial mining station. See how the Chinese miners moved from China to America after they got banned. All this excessive concentration of buildup of mining operations in one or two geopolitical areas is NOT good/useful for the network. Having another miner popping up in Texas is wasting more energy than the marginal security/network resilience it brings to the table. All it does is feed a cottage industry of miners.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • iwfiv Reply

    This isn’t the right way to look at data. Shouldn’t the values be normalized against the economic activity for a fair representation?

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • Dany_B_ Reply

    So, bitcoin good bc the other are worse?
    I don’t see whats “good” here, i’d even say that bitcoin emissions being almost half of data centers is really bad?

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • burgonies Reply

    I don’t think this is as positive for bitcoin as you think it is

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • ABK-Baconator Reply

    Whataboutism is strong on this one.

    Energy consumption is the biggest flaw of Bitcoin. BUT renewables!!! Yes, some portion can be covered with renewables, which are not 100% clean either. Infra is costly. If 25% is done with coal plants, it’s pretty bad.

    Most miners will want profit 24/7 so using miners for load balancing is niche, not mainstream.

    What if renewable energy used for Bitcoin mining was used for something more useful? I’d argue it’s uncommon that you build wind mills or hydro plants or solar panels just for dedicated BTC farms.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • Mr_P_Nissaurus Reply

    Bitcoin mining uses less than one-twentieth of one percent of global energy.

    Miners are able to locate their mining equipment to remote sources of **stranded energy**. For example, Bitcoin miners are using methane from oil drilling operations – methane which would otherwise have been flared. Mining rigs can be taken to remote sources of geothermal energy (volcano power), which is clean.

    Bitcoin miner are able to take advantage of:
    * hydroelectric power (dams)
    * solar power
    * wind power
    …absorbing excess power provided by those clean sources, and pausing operations during times where there is no excess energy.

    People who say stupid shit about Bitcoin’s energy usage are ignorant hypocrites.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • Ok_Magician7814 Reply

    Comparing Bitcoin to global aviation industry, nice 😂

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • NeutronSniper Reply

    I think he meant to say “million metric tons”.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • bitsteiner Reply

    Where is the White House paper on energy use of porn?

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • ChevalBlanc Reply

    They should also add the carbon emissions for the US military. It is hands down the most polluter on earth.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • broand26 Reply

    The only two valid comparisons are the gold mining industry and the global banking industry. I can’t see how bitcoin can every get me from one side of the country to the other so comparing it to the aviation industry seems silly. I agree that the PoW energy consumption narrative is mostly mudslinging from people who don’t understand bitcoin, but making these types of comparisons just seems disingenuous because the two industries are completely unrelated.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • Ok-Mango5075 Reply

    I would happily rent a house inside a nuclear facilty. Free heat from the water cooling system Pump it through my radiators if that helps. You guys can freeze in winter. I want to snuggle up to one of those.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • Raimo00 Reply

    It’s still a lot ngl

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • severance_mortality Reply

    Great plot. I think part of the problem is that they don’t care; they want it to go to zero. They think Bitcoin is worthless or worse than worthless because it challenges their God, the state, so there is no excuse for any energy being spent on it.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • KAX1107 Reply

    This is bearish for the environment.

    Bitcoin needs to use more energy if we want more clean energy and less carbon emissions.

    If you don’t already understand then read on.

    The problem with renewables is it’s not economically viable at scale. We waste more energy than we consume. 70% energy waste globally. 59% lost in generation process. Energy producers can drive down production costs by mining with curtailed and wasted energy. Not only does it make renewables economically viable, it allows energy producers to further invest in and expand their operations.

    The problem with methane is it’s not economically viable to even install flaring. But even with flaring, some methane does escape into atmosphere due to wind and other climate factors. Bitcoin mining not only makes methane capture economically viable but 100% of methane is combusted and nothing vented into atmosphere. Massive win. Methane is over 80 times more potent than CO2. Put simply, if we don’t address it then it won’t matter what else we do.

    The problem with having energy surplus on standby for demand response is it’s not economically viable. A flexible buyer of last resort stabilizing demand side and able to immediately respond to demand spikes provides invaluable service to the grid. The grid needs this buyer of last resort more than the buyer needing the grid. Hence the grid pays miners for demand response in Texas.

    If you want to get people to do something, all you gotta do is make it profitable to do. If it’s not profitable, nobody is gonna do a damn thing. It’s just a useless political narrative. Same old grandstanding and social media outrage while nothing gets done.

    You have Germany who nixed both coal and nuclear for political narratives and becoming entirely reliant on foreign energy. Because apparently as long as Germany doesn’t emit carbon, they’re safe from climate catastrophe. Their renewable infrastructure like wind are curtailed down to 10% production capacity without adequate cost subsidies. The government paid €750 million out of taxpayer pockets to energy producers to compensate for curtailment.

    Germany is a case study on how to destroy your country’s energy infrastructure for political narratives without actually doing anything net positive for the environment and rushing headlong into 3 crises at once. Economic, energy and climate.

    Just repurposing heat from bitcoin miners would have solved Germany’s current energy crisis if they had the foresight to create a favorable political environment to attract miners.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • ThePiachu Reply

    Huh, Bitcoin mining taking up 40% of CO2 emissions of all the Data Centers? That’s a bit alarming when you remember how much Internet there is…

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • grndslm Reply

    And then there’s the issue of Bitcoin actually *offsetting* the offgassed methane that oil companies would otherwise vent into the atmosphere…..

    Methane is AT LEAST as harmful to the environment as CO2 (even more harmful when you’re considering 20 year or even 100 year timelines — there’s no better immediate impact than reducing methane, PERIOD). So Bitcoin’s reduction of methane should also be considered.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • combocookie Reply

    Now add proof of stake to the chart.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am
  • Centmo Reply

    This line of reasoning is ineffective at appeasing the naysayers because they don’t understand the utility of Bitcoin. They see it as useless, so any energy spent is wasted energy. The key is helping them understand the value of Bitcoin, which is rooted in its utility.

    September 12, 2022 at 7:37 am

Leave a Reply


%d bloggers like this: