Bitcoin power consumption is not a concern, says Research Associate

In a recent article published in The Conversation (non-profit academic media), Dr. Katrina M. Associate Researcher, Resilient Energy and Power Systems at the Swanson School of Engineering discussed Bitcoin and recent consumer conversations. of cryptocurrency energy.

Katrina, also known as Kelly-Pitou, believes that discussions around Bitcoin and energy have become too simplified and unfair without understanding the energy intensity of new technologies in general. She says:

"New technologies, such as data centers, computers and, before them, trains, planes and cars, often consume a lot of energy. Over time, all these have become more efficient, a natural progression of any technology: Saving energy is equivalent to saving costs ".

In early May 2018, an article published by Forbes cited that "Bitcoin's need for electricity is its Achilles heel", stating that Bitcoin uses as much energy as the Czech Republic uses in its entirety and usage will increase in the future. The article said:

"Bitcoin mining around the world uses almost as much energy as the Czech Republic. This is to currently process approximately 2.5 transactions per second. Proof of work could be better called "Proof of waste".

In addition, if the price of Bitcoin increases further, as many have predicted, electricity consumption will also increase. This is a characteristic, not an error. The adjustment of the difficulty aims to increase the use of electricity and, therefore, the cost of mining as the price of Bitcoin increases.

Contrary to the above, Kelly-Pitou believes that by concentrating only on energy consumption, people are not understanding the advantages offered by renewable energy systems.

She explains that the production of electricity can increase while having a minimal impact on the environment.

According to his research, Bitcoin requires a large amount of computational power. Electricity is 90 percent of the cost of mining Bitcoin. Only in 2017, the energy consumption of Bitcoin mining was estimated at approximately 30 terawatts per hour. She argues that electricity consumption has not gone away. In his words:

"In fact, this is a lot, but not exorbitant."

In addition, he stated that Bitcoin's energy consumption will only be 2 percent of the total energy consumption, even if it multiplies 100 times more than its current market size.

In Kelly's opinion, one must question and discuss Bitcoin's carbon production. In her article, she also talks about how Bitcoin miners are moving to areas with cheap energy such as the Pacific Northwest of China and the regions of Europe. So, the goal should be to assess the comparative carbon footprint of the Bitcoin process, she says.

In addition, he says that the world must concentrate on discovering who is producing electricity and where it comes from. She said conclusively:

"Maybe people should stop criticizing Bitcoin for its energy intensity and start criticizing states and nations for continuing to provide dirty industries with dirty energy supplies instead."

It is not just Kelly-Pitou's research that has revealed that Bitcoin's energy consumption will not be a danger to the environment. Earlier this year, according to Bloomberg, a statement by Credit Suisse analyst Michael Weinstein stated:

"This is far from the power and environmental Armageddon that some feared."

The statement was issued in context with the statement of Morgan Stanley analyst Nicholas Ashworth, who said that Bitcoin miners and other cryptocurrencies could require up to 140 terawatt-hours in 2017, which represents about 0.6% of the total world.