@@kurtilein3 bitcoin mining single handedly saved a massive hydro plant in New York and another in Europe. Bitcoin is the world leader in green energy pioneering; nothing comes close. Bitcoin uses hydro all the time as well as other "steady state" sources that are being used to baseline anyway regardless of carbon because that carbon is being used either way. Bitcoin mining also burns a lot of methane that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere. Methane is 40 times more warming than CO2 so burning methane, while it technically produces CO2, is WAY better than releasing unburnt methane. Bitcoin energy FUD is fake news by the billionaire elitists in the military industrial complex that want the world to be forever dependent on the blood and oil of the petrodollar and other nation state currencies that oppress their people and transfer wealth from working families to governments and global elitists. Bitcoin is one of the greenest technologies ever invented and it's every consumption is nothing compared to central banks and their war machines.
@@kurtilein3 simply not true. NYDIG just released a nice easy to read summary on this very topic but there are many other sources. Physical heat from computers has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Bitcoin incentivizes and innovates more green energy than any government based policy and it's unintended consequences. And responsible logging absolutely does save forests; fake environmentalist policies like preventing forest management leads to massive forest fires case in point the ridiculous policies in California that prevents clearing dead wood and controlled burns. Coal can't shut off either, there is always a stead state amount and bitcoin is great at tapping into that as well as all the other energy sources it uses. Centralized proof of stake crapcoins do nothing to innovate green energy. In any case if you don't stack your sats someone else thanks you for them.
I disagree with the base argument of using wasted energy. There has to be a margin excess to handle electricity consumption spikes or overall wrong consumption previsions. Using that excess on long term will simply increase the demand. Farmers using "wasted energy" become parts of the consumer group and the production capabilities have to adapt.
I got lost at the end. Bitcoin uses all manner of energy, if someone decided to generate energy from a stream, and someone else from burning wood etc, then Bitcoin isn't centralising energy production at all. We have mining pools yes, but the whole bit at the beginning already tells us that we don't know who the miners are and where they are or how they are getting their energy.
It powers and secures a payment network. Period. How much energy is used to power other payment networks? Like USD? All those ATMs just sitting there... every debit card purchase and all the eyes that watch getting notified, big banks making spreadsheets, etc. etc. It's endless, SO MANY variables, and so massive it might be impossible to track that system!
@@kurtilein3 so because nobody uses bitcoin as a currency its unfair to compare it to one that is used like USD? Im not sure where youre going with this? Though sure, nano is the shizz and in comparison btc looks like the trash it is. Though most of the ppl complaining about bitcoin arent using the more energy effiecient currency solution. I was simply comparing it to the currency they use. Its like them driving the tank but complaing about the about the beater car that leaks gasoline and hasnt been smog checked ever. Neither are very good, but there is one that is better.. yet still isnt best.
Don't get me wrong, I am so much into Bitcoin and its philosophy, but I have to say I was expecting a bit more from you, Andreas. A bit of naive argument here. 1. Leaving all responsibility to government. 2. Ignoring all the electronics industry needed to manufacture and support the bitcoin network
Agree with the video. One thing i would like to add though : In order to follow Paris agreement (2 degrees), we need to reduce our carbon emission by 5% per year across all sectors, transport, industry, internet .. basically a covid every year.. That means directly reduce our energy demand / consumption by 5% per year (gdp being directly correlated to energy since its all machines food (cars to go to work, pen, houses, school, batteries, shoes, plastic straws etc) and thus, gdp to carbon emission. So not just taxing bad energy production, reducing all energy consumption. So i think we should collectively decide what energy consumption we want to keep and categorise essential energy consumption to non essential being worth keeping for humanity peace and future on earth. (since 4/6 degrees, its basically mass immigration, famine and wars.. for first goods, water etc)
Reducing carbon emissions doesn't mean we have to decrease energy demand. It means we have to make our energy production less carbon intensive. In the future we will most likely use way more energy than we do today. The only way forward is to make clean sustainable energy as abundant as possible.
"We shouldn't be concerned with how we consume energy, we should be worried about having the political will to reduce pollution & damage to the environment. Bitcoin isn't the villain here."
Agree with the video. One thing i would like to add though : In order to follow Paris agreement (2 degrees), we need to reduce our carbon emission by 5% per year across all sectors, transport, industry, internet .. basically a covid every year.. That means directly reduce our energy demand / consumption by 5% per year (gdp being directly correlated to energy since its all machines food (cars to go to work, pen, houses, school, batteries, shoes, plastic straws etc) and thus, gdp to carbon emission. So not just taxing bad energy production, reducing all energy consumption. So i think we should collectively decide what energy consumption we want to keep and categorise essential energy consumption to non essential being worth keeping for humanity peace and future on earth. (since 4/6 degrees, its basically mass immigration, famine and wars.. for first goods, water etc)
The thing is that its unnecessary. There are other solutions such as proof of stake that use very minimal electricity altogether and thus the impact of electricity (clean or dirty) is not a significant factor.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch! First of all, how much waste green energy you think there is in the world? There are maybe a few countries in the world with this “problem” (Thermal energy in Iceland?). And then second, if this waste green energy exist, it would never be waste anymore if there was demand for it. No sane energy supplier would sell their energy for free to a business that is going to make a lot of money if it. Shouldn’t we agree and say that bitcoins consumes lots of energy and, as in every other industry, for the moment it’ll be in larger part carbon sourced energy?
He mentions having the political will to become environmentally friendly for certain jurisdictions as if they don’t have the political that they are ignorant or nefarious, however, places of extreme poverty require the cheapest energy possible to lift them out of poverty as quickly as possible so that they can become more environmentally sensitive. When you’re just trying to survive, you’re not concerned with the environment. Bjorn Lomborg’s book talks about this. So even though Andreas is right about a lot of things, I think there is some nuances to this point that he may not be aware and/or mention.
Ocean wave-energy is the ultimate in "waste energy". Almost none of this energy is utilized today. It could be tapped through wave-based mechanical motion. If so, it could produce enough power to run efficient crypto mining gear, all with zero greenhouse gases. Starlink uploads would allow mining gear to be located off-shore.
People always neglect the many other blockchains that are merged-mined with Bitcoin, reusing the PoW as their own making more with the same power input
it's about twice as efficient generating electicity in a power plant for your car then using a gas engine so even without renewable energy it still makes sense to have electric cars.
@@nebylicza that doesn't sound right if you think about it. the only huge difference in producing an ev would be the battery i'd think and those will all be recycled with 90% or more efficiency relatively soon. What components of an ev would produce so much more co2 in production that it would out weigh the savings from the power plant which cuts the emissions about in half over the whole life of the vehicle?
@@carefulmovers431 production is one part of the equation. You also need to take into consideration the daily use of the car. Where does the electricity used to charge the battery come from? If it’s from a coal plant, then it will generate more CO2.
@@nebylicza as far as i know when fossil fuels such as oil are used to produce electricity in a power plant it's usually about twice as efficient as if those fossil fuels where combusted in a car engine. The power plant has huge rotating things that spin to high speeds and are more efficient than an ice engine which loses a lot of the energy in the form of giving off heat. this is why a gallon of gas contains about 35 kwh of energy yet a car with a 70kwh pack which is the equivalent of about 2 gallons gets you the same distance as a full tank of gas. an ev owner pays roughly the price of 2 or 3 gallons to fill up for the same 300 miles. if you put 2 gallons of gas in a car which is roughly the equivalent kwh's as a car with a 70 kwh pack, you won't go anywhere near 300 miles yet it's the same amount of kwh's in terms of energy. the ice engine is that much less efficient than producing it in a plant using the same fuel. maybe it's a little less good with coal ill have to check it out but if they were using the same fuel in the plant as the car it would be 2-3x the efficiency. even if you were right it wouldn't matter much because there's no way to get to sustainable energy consumption without switching to ev's. even if it was just as dirty now you can't get to cleaner in the future without switching
It seems to me that a more thermodynamically-efficient means of achieving consensus would outperform and out-scale one which requires more energy for the same consensus - also the larger scale means possibly greater degree of decentralization. Also...anything requiring industrial-scale thermodynamic proof-of-work whether off-grid or not means you're more easily visible to organizations with sufficient ability to see: your energy bill , waste heat production, physical space usage for solar/wind/hydro (ie. from space). Your continual quest for lower entropy eventually encroaches on others doing the same thing for different purposes, no? I could be totally wrong but staking doesn't seem to have these limitations (?)
A question example. Wouldn't it be more fair to compare the production of a Tesla car to the mining of one fraction of a Bitcoin equal to the value of a Tesla. My thought is that Bitcoin is many times more eco-friendly than the building of a car that takes 1500 lb of batteries combination of plastics and minerals like copper aluminum metal and paint. As usual we really don't get the truth we just get a narrative of what they want us to believe. A sad reality in my mind. Thank you for speaking the truth. It's hard to come by these days
Hi , cant we take the balances on the bitcoin blockchain and change the technology of bitcoin to something like solana so that we have the ledger of bitcoin with the latest technology and not the old POW 10 minutes blocks 7TPS ? please explain this to us.
You didn’t mention the infrastructure of Financial institutions that are being replaced by cryptocurrency mining, those building’s and and skyscrapers consume a great deal of energy it doesn’t seem to get mentioned add to that the transportation requirements of employees, some with very long commutes. A fission reactor is starting to come online soon, it truly advanced, instead of just incrementing generation number like is done for uranium PWR. It’s called Thorium Molten Salt Reactors and because of the more then half century of red tape and bureaucratic roadblock it will have to be made in China 🇨🇳, it’s has greater safety and efficiency, shorter radioactive waste storage time, more abundant fuel supply the list go on.
with an electric car you may shift the pollution to another place, but even then, an electric car is more than 3 times more efficient than a combustion car. thats tremendously better. its all about energy storage at the end of the day. even a coal plant could increase its efficiency/reduce emissions by a factor of up to 9 if it can continously run at its best efficiency. overproduced energy is a thing on literally every production method, especially renewables. another thing that needs to be mentioned in this discussion is the energy consumption of Fiat money and everything that comes with it, which is significantly higher than crypto.
This is a bit of a flaky argument. Bitcoin mining is a constant energy demand operation. You don't turn off the miners once there is enough demand, you turn on the coal plant.
And btw, not the same thing with electric cars. You already needed to move anyways, you would use this energy regardless. Bitcoin mining has more efficient alternatives, but not safer nor more decentralized and this is the true argument.
Carbon damage? Why are you equating pollution with carbon emissions? Please read about the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission and their influence on the public perception of carbon.
How much energy is wasted in Washington DC in all those massive over staffed government buildings, post offices, fleets of government vehicles, the federal reserve printing presses, government computers, the pentagon…etc. Bitcoin miners would be a blip on the radar compared to how much energy the CIA or the EPA use. Miner energy usage is just a red herring and total nonsense.
A Tesla driving on coal generated electricity is still slightly less polluting that a Prius on gasoline. A Tesla on any other source of electricity is dramatically cleaner. On solar or wind it is essentially "net zero".
Thanks Andreas, great source, but I don't agree with what I think was a bias and pesimistic comment about electric cars, dismissing the incredible leading of Tesla in transition to sustainable energy, they are pushing the market to their ecosystem based in reducing carbon emissions even more than the governments. My opinion. You have my respect in Crypto affairs.
I'm excited to dive into the workshops. I wasn't aware of them until now, and its exactly what I've been looking for. Is there any chance to add technical Ethereum workshops as well (going over Solidity, writing smart contracts, etc)?
Thanks for the video. Could you please make a video about computer requirements for mining in the future? Let's say in 10 years. Maybe the problem of Bitcoin will not be renewable energy but computer capabilities for mining.
It should be illegal to mine crypto using power from the main grid. Use your own power for that. We are trying to decrease carbon output not increase it.
Thanks for talking about this this . A negative trend about bitcoins electricity demands and how dirty it might be could spiral out of control. Like you say it’s about as clear as mud about who uses what and where the media could really run with this. We have been warned clean up your backyard bitcoin !!! And do it fast before it’s to late
Using excess energy to mine is a great innovation, but carbon tax seems like a ploy to further centralize control. Solar is becoming more economical and fossil fuels less, without force from centralized governments. Decentralization at its finest;)
That's why i think EZ coin is going places as they have mobile mining rigs for capturing energy from the flaring of gas, witch is 100% wasted energy now. Since petrol is going to be around for a while i think it has potential
Use verified carbon sequestration for the proof of work on crypto instead of hashing. This would require a nother cryptocoin to be based on verifying the claims made by the miners who are sequestering the carbon
Bitcoin isn't the villian, but it also is not a NECESSARY demand. From a hierarchical stance, bitcoin mining doesn't add value to sustaining human existence (food, shelter, transportation, etc.). You have a bias toward cryptocurrency and you aren't offering enough of a contrarian view for me to consider your analysis fact-based. Although, I agree with your cost analysis and usage of renewables that are unused/wasted because there is no demand. You also didn't mention energy storage as a function of the electrical grid. This will be one of the fastest-growing markets in the next 30 years. Bitcoin in this equation creates demand for at least in the near-term a finite supply of energy. Bitcoin production will compete with consumers trying to heat and cool their homes, charge their EVs, and everything else on the electrical grid.
I think what scares me about Bitcoin is the exponential aspect of it. It's a niche technology and yet it consumes as much as the Netherlands. The whole thing is designed to compete on consuming energy. Sure we need governments to tax on carbon and other bad sources of energy. But in the midst of an epochal climate disaster we really don't need a decentralized and unstoppable system that literally sponsors more consumption, in a super competitive and effective way. And thinking that the system may subsidize our transition to renewables is a bit of wishful thinking. I'm all for democratic financial systems but can't we build the thing to not work with energy?
Use of energy is not linearly correlated with number of transactions in Bitcoin. It can transact more with current energy use in its base layer. If near future, when lightning and other L2, L3 will be integrated well, we will see 1000x more transactions with same energy.
The question which was supposed to be answered was - "is there any way to reduce energy consumption of bitcoin?" Because the higher the price go, energy consumption would increase exponentially.
These types of miners are nimble - the most nimble kind of miners in the world, unlike, say electricity demand from residential - which cannot move obviously - they can move, and they have. They have moved to and congregated in areas of low electricity cost. Where are these? in areas with the cheapest electricity - that is in the mountains that produce Hydro Power - the cheapest of all electricity and that is in the deserts where you find the next cheapest electricity - solar, and Icy places where you find geothermal electricity generation and .... and cold to cool the ASICs without effort. Look at where all the major Bitcoin mines are!!! Holy moly, slow folks are still having this conversation, really!
my guy, i really dont want to be rude but dont put that photo of yours for soo long in the video. is very creepy and i cant focus on what you're saying 😂
Not a single clear concept of energy generation, distribution and usage is depicted in this video. You should first read Vaclav Smil's book before making another video in this regard.
Sory but your answer is not really a good one. The question is, how much pollution was produced to make the 'world gold reserve', and how many chemicals and plastic is used for those hundred of trillions of notes/bills and plastic cards we have in our physical wallets? And all that in glorious EU campaign against plastic, well EU, maybe we should burn those EU bills!
Just bought your book, great stuff, enjoying it a lot. On the other hand when i hear CO2 is polluting, it hurts my ears :))) all those solar panels and wind turbines hardly produce more than 5% of world's energy, why not to start calling them overpriced unreliables instead of renewables, please put that miner from your animation near that solar panel at night :D, stop helping alarmists to stop the progress but if you or they want to hug a tree, - do it, I don't mind, just don't make me look immoral with my energy choices, which are abundant, reliable, sufficient and affordable. Long live bitcoin!
![Cheaters Can't Cheat: Fairness Protocol Explained [The value in bitcoin, ethereum, open blockchains]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JtyRN4YFRFI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Cheaters Can't Cheat: Fairness Protocol Explained [The value in bitcoin, ethereum, open blockchains]](/img/tr.png)
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
lol at all the FUD about bitcoin carbon coming from the literal petrodollar fiat crowd 😂
@@kurtilein3 BTC is saving hydro plants from shutting down and innovating way more "green" energy than the POS coins.
@@kurtilein3 bitcoin mining single handedly saved a massive hydro plant in New York and another in Europe. Bitcoin is the world leader in green energy pioneering; nothing comes close. Bitcoin uses hydro all the time as well as other "steady state" sources that are being used to baseline anyway regardless of carbon because that carbon is being used either way. Bitcoin mining also burns a lot of methane that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere. Methane is 40 times more warming than CO2 so burning methane, while it technically produces CO2, is WAY better than releasing unburnt methane. Bitcoin energy FUD is fake news by the billionaire elitists in the military industrial complex that want the world to be forever dependent on the blood and oil of the petrodollar and other nation state currencies that oppress their people and transfer wealth from working families to governments and global elitists. Bitcoin is one of the greenest technologies ever invented and it's every consumption is nothing compared to central banks and their war machines.
@@kurtilein3 simply not true. NYDIG just released a nice easy to read summary on this very topic but there are many other sources. Physical heat from computers has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Bitcoin incentivizes and innovates more green energy than any government based policy and it's unintended consequences. And responsible logging absolutely does save forests; fake environmentalist policies like preventing forest management leads to massive forest fires case in point the ridiculous policies in California that prevents clearing dead wood and controlled burns. Coal can't shut off either, there is always a stead state amount and bitcoin is great at tapping into that as well as all the other energy sources it uses. Centralized proof of stake crapcoins do nothing to innovate green energy. In any case if you don't stack your sats someone else thanks you for them.
"Tesla burning fossil fuel but from a distance" amazing as always!!
Excellent point! Electric cars essentially burn coal. On a side note, I hate electric cars.
Except an EV is always cleaner then an Internal combustion engine. Always.
I disagree with the base argument of using wasted energy.
There has to be a margin excess to handle electricity consumption spikes or overall wrong
consumption previsions. Using that excess on long term will simply increase the demand.
Farmers using "wasted energy" become parts of the consumer group and the production capabilities
have to adapt.
I don't think you have followed the arguments here
I got lost at the end. Bitcoin uses all manner of energy, if someone decided to generate energy from a stream, and someone else from burning wood etc, then Bitcoin isn't centralising energy production at all.
We have mining pools yes, but the whole bit at the beginning already tells us that we don't know who the miners are and where they are or how they are getting their energy.
It powers and secures a payment network. Period. How much energy is used to power other payment networks? Like USD? All those ATMs just sitting there... every debit card purchase and all the eyes that watch getting notified, big banks making spreadsheets, etc. etc. It's endless, SO MANY variables, and so massive it might be impossible to track that system!
@@kurtilein3 so because nobody uses bitcoin as a currency its unfair to compare it to one that is used like USD? Im not sure where youre going with this? Though sure, nano is the shizz and in comparison btc looks like the trash it is. Though most of the ppl complaining about bitcoin arent using the more energy effiecient currency solution. I was simply comparing it to the currency they use. Its like them driving the tank but complaing about the about the beater car that leaks gasoline and hasnt been smog checked ever. Neither are very good, but there is one that is better.. yet still isnt best.
Don't get me wrong, I am so much into Bitcoin and its philosophy, but I have to say I was expecting a bit more from you, Andreas. A bit of naive argument here. 1. Leaving all responsibility to government. 2. Ignoring all the electronics industry needed to manufacture and support the bitcoin network
Agree with the video. One thing i would like to add though :
In order to follow Paris agreement (2 degrees), we need to reduce our carbon emission by 5% per year across all sectors, transport, industry, internet .. basically a covid every year.. That means directly reduce our energy demand / consumption by 5% per year (gdp being directly correlated to energy since its all machines food (cars to go to work, pen, houses, school, batteries, shoes, plastic straws etc) and thus, gdp to carbon emission. So not just taxing bad energy production, reducing all energy consumption.
So i think we should collectively decide what energy consumption we want to keep and categorise essential energy consumption to non essential being worth keeping for humanity peace and future on earth. (since 4/6 degrees, its basically mass immigration, famine and wars.. for first goods, water etc)
Reducing carbon emissions doesn't mean we have to decrease energy demand. It means we have to make our energy production less carbon intensive. In the future we will most likely use way more energy than we do today. The only way forward is to make clean sustainable energy as abundant as possible.
"IF there is the political will"... well said.
"We shouldn't be concerned with how we consume energy, we should be worried about having the political will to reduce pollution & damage to the environment. Bitcoin isn't the villain here."
Yes it's so easy to choose a scapegoat where everything else is shitty and crumbling anyways🤷♀️
Agree with the video. One thing i would like to add though :
In order to follow Paris agreement (2 degrees), we need to reduce our carbon emission by 5% per year across all sectors, transport, industry, internet .. basically a covid every year.. That means directly reduce our energy demand / consumption by 5% per year (gdp being directly correlated to energy since its all machines food (cars to go to work, pen, houses, school, batteries, shoes, plastic straws etc) and thus, gdp to carbon emission. So not just taxing bad energy production, reducing all energy consumption.
So i think we should collectively decide what energy consumption we want to keep and categorise essential energy consumption to non essential being worth keeping for humanity peace and future on earth. (since 4/6 degrees, its basically mass immigration, famine and wars.. for first goods, water etc)
What some fail to recognize about , what if the power goes out, forget that bitcoin converts energy sources like methane into electricity
Great explanation, except I disagree with your view on Carbon Credits. Happy to go into details if anyone cares.
Always the voice of Reason. Thank you Andreas 🙏
This was gold! Please spread this folks! It's not only about Bitcoin but for a greener healthier world!
The thing is that its unnecessary. There are other solutions such as proof of stake that use very minimal electricity altogether and thus the impact of electricity (clean or dirty) is not a significant factor.
Proof of stake is not decentralized
@@kurtilein3 no lol
There’s no such thing as a free lunch! First of all, how much waste green energy you think there is in the world? There are maybe a few countries in the world with this “problem” (Thermal energy in Iceland?). And then second, if this waste green energy exist, it would never be waste anymore if there was demand for it. No sane energy supplier would sell their energy for free to a business that is going to make a lot of money if it. Shouldn’t we agree and say that bitcoins consumes lots of energy and, as in every other industry, for the moment it’ll be in larger part carbon sourced energy?
He mentions having the political will to become environmentally friendly for certain jurisdictions as if they don’t have the political that they are ignorant or nefarious, however, places of extreme poverty require the cheapest energy possible to lift them out of poverty as quickly as possible so that they can become more environmentally sensitive. When you’re just trying to survive, you’re not concerned with the environment. Bjorn Lomborg’s book talks about this. So even though Andreas is right about a lot of things, I think there is some nuances to this point that he may not be aware and/or mention.
Ocean wave-energy is the ultimate in "waste energy". Almost none of this energy is utilized today. It could be tapped through wave-based mechanical motion. If so, it could produce enough power to run efficient crypto mining gear, all with zero greenhouse gases. Starlink uploads would allow mining gear to be located off-shore.
People always neglect the many other blockchains that are merged-mined with Bitcoin, reusing the PoW as their own making more with the same power input
Hahahaha from what i see, scammers are having harder times baiting people with telephon number. 😂😂😂😂
it's about twice as efficient generating electicity in a power plant for your car then using a gas engine so even without renewable energy it still makes sense to have electric cars.
@@nebylicza that doesn't sound right if you think about it. the only huge difference in producing an ev would be the battery i'd think and those will all be recycled with 90% or more efficiency relatively soon. What components of an ev would produce so much more co2 in production that it would out weigh the savings from the power plant which cuts the emissions about in half over the whole life of the vehicle?
@@carefulmovers431 production is one part of the equation. You also need to take into consideration the daily use of the car. Where does the electricity used to charge the battery come from? If it’s from a coal plant, then it will generate more CO2.
@@nebylicza as far as i know when fossil fuels such as oil are used to produce electricity in a power plant it's usually about twice as efficient as if those fossil fuels where combusted in a car engine. The power plant has huge rotating things that spin to high speeds and are more efficient than an ice engine which loses a lot of the energy in the form of giving off heat. this is why a gallon of gas contains about 35 kwh of energy yet a car with a 70kwh pack which is the equivalent of about 2 gallons gets you the same distance as a full tank of gas. an ev owner pays roughly the price of 2 or 3 gallons to fill up for the same 300 miles. if you put 2 gallons of gas in a car which is roughly the equivalent kwh's as a car with a 70 kwh pack, you won't go anywhere near 300 miles yet it's the same amount of kwh's in terms of energy. the ice engine is that much less efficient than producing it in a plant using the same fuel. maybe it's a little less good with coal ill have to check it out but if they were using the same fuel in the plant as the car it would be 2-3x the efficiency. even if you were right it wouldn't matter much because there's no way to get to sustainable energy consumption without switching to ev's. even if it was just as dirty now you can't get to cleaner in the future without switching
Transmission loss?
a fossil fuel car used 364 days a year transporting on average 4 people or electric one transporting 1 and used 40 days a year? ;)
Solar power is tuned off at night or cloudy day
can't you store excess energy?
Amazing. You should have Million+ Views..
All if carbon really is related to variations in climate. That tesla battery production is factually polluting not just theoretically.
Great answer, also the audiovisuals are great!
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollution! It is plant food! Good luck with reducing the key plant food for the world!
Excellent content as always. A question, Can't you sell excess energy to state?
I wonder about the energy consumption of HVAC systems in banks and financial institutions.
It seems to me that a more thermodynamically-efficient means of achieving consensus would outperform and out-scale one which requires more energy for the same consensus - also the larger scale means possibly greater degree of decentralization.
Also...anything requiring industrial-scale thermodynamic proof-of-work whether off-grid or not means you're more easily visible to organizations with sufficient ability to see: your energy bill , waste heat production, physical space usage for solar/wind/hydro (ie. from space). Your continual quest for lower entropy eventually encroaches on others doing the same thing for different purposes, no?
I could be totally wrong but staking doesn't seem to have these limitations (?)
Andreas has to be the realest in the crypto space.
A question example. Wouldn't it be more fair to compare the production of a Tesla car to the mining of one fraction of a Bitcoin equal to the value of a Tesla. My thought is that Bitcoin is many times more eco-friendly than the building of a car that takes 1500 lb of batteries combination of plastics and minerals like copper aluminum metal and paint. As usual we really don't get the truth we just get a narrative of what they want us to believe. A sad reality in my mind. Thank you for speaking the truth. It's hard to come by these days
Hi , cant we take the balances on the bitcoin blockchain and change the technology of bitcoin to something like solana so that we have the ledger of bitcoin with the latest technology and not the old POW 10 minutes blocks 7TPS ? please explain this to us.
Andreas never ceases to amaze me, these Q&A questions are pretty random, how can he improvise such articulate answers!?
You didn’t mention the infrastructure of Financial institutions that are being replaced by cryptocurrency mining, those building’s and and skyscrapers consume a great deal of energy it doesn’t seem to get mentioned add to that the transportation requirements of employees, some with very long commutes.
A fission reactor is starting to come online soon, it truly advanced, instead of just incrementing generation number like is done for uranium PWR. It’s called Thorium Molten Salt Reactors and because of the more then half century of red tape and bureaucratic roadblock it will have to be made in China 🇨🇳, it’s has greater safety and efficiency, shorter radioactive waste storage time, more abundant fuel supply the list go on.
with an electric car you may shift the pollution to another place, but even then, an electric car is more than 3 times more efficient than a combustion car.
thats tremendously better.
its all about energy storage at the end of the day. even a coal plant could increase its efficiency/reduce emissions by a factor of up to 9 if it can continously run at its best efficiency. overproduced energy is a thing on literally every production method, especially renewables.
another thing that needs to be mentioned in this discussion is the energy consumption of Fiat money and everything that comes with it, which is significantly higher than crypto.
As simple as that.
This is a bit of a flaky argument. Bitcoin mining is a constant energy demand operation. You don't turn off the miners once there is enough demand, you turn on the coal plant.
And btw, not the same thing with electric cars. You already needed to move anyways, you would use this energy regardless. Bitcoin mining has more efficient alternatives, but not safer nor more decentralized and this is the true argument.
Electric cars are the most efficient kind of cars. Bitcoin isn't the most efficient kind of money.
That said, Bitcoin is the best kind of money. Freedom and privacy over everything.
Carbon damage? Why are you equating pollution with carbon emissions? Please read about the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission and their influence on the public perception of carbon.
How much energy is wasted in Washington DC in all those massive over staffed government buildings, post offices, fleets of government vehicles, the federal reserve printing presses, government computers, the pentagon…etc. Bitcoin miners would be a blip on the radar compared to how much energy the CIA or the EPA use. Miner energy usage is just a red herring and total nonsense.
A Tesla driving on coal generated electricity is still slightly less polluting that a Prius on gasoline. A Tesla on any other source of electricity is dramatically cleaner. On solar or wind it is essentially "net zero".
We can hope we can produce clean electricity as much as possible. We would all breath a cleaner air.
a fossil fuel car used 364 days a year transporting on average 4 people or electric one transporting 1 and used 40 days a year?
Thanks Andreas, great source, but I don't agree with what I think was a bias and pesimistic comment about electric cars, dismissing the incredible leading of Tesla in transition to sustainable energy, they are pushing the market to their ecosystem based in reducing carbon emissions even more than the governments. My opinion. You have my respect in Crypto affairs.
I'm excited to dive into the workshops. I wasn't aware of them until now, and its exactly what I've been looking for. Is there any chance to add technical Ethereum workshops as well (going over Solidity, writing smart contracts, etc)?
Meanwhile, we are possibly heading into cooler times ahead. Better for mining.
Why cant we collect the location of the IP for miners and see where they are ?
Sure there is vpn but not everyone use them i would assume.
lmao
the picture is super distracting
Solar is the cheapest source of energy. It's fair to assume that solar is the primary energy source.
Thanks for the video. Could you please make a video about computer requirements for mining in the future? Let's say in 10 years. Maybe the problem of Bitcoin will not be renewable energy but computer capabilities for mining.
It should be illegal to mine crypto using power from the main grid. Use your own power for that. We are trying to decrease carbon output not increase it.
Love this video !
Thanks for talking about this this . A negative trend about bitcoins electricity demands and how dirty it might be could spiral out of control. Like you say it’s about as clear as mud about who uses what and where the media could really run with this. We have been warned clean up your backyard bitcoin !!! And do it fast before it’s to late
very interesting logic
absolutely the best
Using excess energy to mine is a great innovation, but carbon tax seems like a ploy to further centralize control. Solar is becoming more economical and fossil fuels less, without force from centralized governments. Decentralization at its finest;)
That's why i think EZ coin is going places as they have mobile mining rigs for capturing energy from the flaring of gas, witch is 100% wasted energy now. Since petrol is going to be around for a while i think it has potential
energy usage ... ? ...... all ... all energy is good energy, the cheaper the better ....
Energy will be priced in bitcoin.
Superb, well argued case. Great work!
Use verified carbon sequestration for the proof of work on crypto instead of hashing. This would require a nother cryptocoin to be based on verifying the claims made by the miners who are sequestering the carbon
Finally, the truth about mining.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
What is the best estimate of % waste energy used for the Bitcoin protocol, as part of the whole energy mix for Bitcoin?
Awesome as always! Thanks
Bitcoin isn't the villian, but it also is not a NECESSARY demand. From a hierarchical stance, bitcoin mining doesn't add value to sustaining human existence (food, shelter, transportation, etc.). You have a bias toward cryptocurrency and you aren't offering enough of a contrarian view for me to consider your analysis fact-based. Although, I agree with your cost analysis and usage of renewables that are unused/wasted because there is no demand.
You also didn't mention energy storage as a function of the electrical grid. This will be one of the fastest-growing markets in the next 30 years. Bitcoin in this equation creates demand for at least in the near-term a finite supply of energy. Bitcoin production will compete with consumers trying to heat and cool their homes, charge their EVs, and everything else on the electrical grid.
"President does not believe in climate change"... I see what you did there Andreas lol
hey man i think you should consider your UA-cam videos as unique NFTs on Uquid platform
lol gfy
Of course... politics affects this, but politicians don't want to admit it.
Say no more, FUD buster as always!
I think what scares me about Bitcoin is the exponential aspect of it. It's a niche technology and yet it consumes as much as the Netherlands. The whole thing is designed to compete on consuming energy. Sure we need governments to tax on carbon and other bad sources of energy. But in the midst of an epochal climate disaster we really don't need a decentralized and unstoppable system that literally sponsors more consumption, in a super competitive and effective way. And thinking that the system may subsidize our transition to renewables is a bit of wishful thinking. I'm all for democratic financial systems but can't we build the thing to not work with energy?
Use of energy is not linearly correlated with number of transactions in Bitcoin. It can transact more with current energy use in its base layer. If near future, when lightning and other L2, L3 will be integrated well, we will see 1000x more transactions with same energy.
Energy Web is the global solution
👍
The question which was supposed to be answered was - "is there any way to reduce energy consumption of bitcoin?"
Because the higher the price go, energy consumption would increase exponentially.
@@knowsomething9384 then you don't know how investing works.
You should learn before commenting any non sense
🕉️🚀
Electric cars use external combustion engines. IE power stations
How much energy do Christmas lights burn every year? You know, because Christmas lights are really important.
You missed the point about EVs where they are much more efficient with the energy that goes into them, wherever it comes from.
👍🇬🇷👍
These types of miners are nimble - the most nimble kind of miners in the world, unlike, say electricity demand from residential - which cannot move obviously - they can move, and they have. They have moved to and congregated in areas of low electricity cost. Where are these? in areas with the cheapest electricity - that is in the mountains that produce Hydro Power - the cheapest of all electricity and that is in the deserts where you find the next cheapest electricity - solar, and Icy places where you find geothermal electricity generation and .... and cold to cool the ASICs without effort. Look at where all the major Bitcoin mines are!!! Holy moly, slow folks are still having this conversation, really!
my guy, i really dont want to be rude but dont put that photo of yours for soo long in the video. is very creepy and i cant focus on what you're saying 😂
Please. Do we need to see your smiling face so often. How annoying. Otherwise good content. Wtf!
Not a single clear concept of energy generation, distribution and usage is depicted in this video. You should first read Vaclav Smil's book before making another video in this regard.
Sory but your answer is not really a good one. The question is, how much pollution was produced to make the 'world gold reserve', and how many chemicals and plastic is used for those hundred of trillions of notes/bills and plastic cards we have in our physical wallets? And all that in glorious EU campaign against plastic, well EU, maybe we should burn those EU bills!
6:20 "If you put solar panels on your roof and charge your car at NIGHT..."
This about sums up how brain dead BTC max's are regarding energy. 🤣
Battery 🔋?
Just bought your book, great stuff, enjoying it a lot. On the other hand when i hear CO2 is polluting, it hurts my ears :))) all those solar panels and wind turbines hardly produce more than 5% of world's energy, why not to start calling them overpriced unreliables instead of renewables, please put that miner from your animation near that solar panel at night :D, stop helping alarmists to stop the progress but if you or they want to hug a tree, - do it, I don't mind, just don't make me look immoral with my energy choices, which are abundant, reliable, sufficient and affordable. Long live bitcoin!