A new report indicates that bitcoins can not yet become "green"; More research needed

A new report published in the journal Joule Alex de Vries suggests that this is not the case. In fact, the blockchain specialist claims that the environmental impact of Bitcoin transaction processing is much worse than that of existing systems.

Bitcoin electric costs

According to De Vries, the calculation of Bitcoin transaction costs can be complex. However, a series of simple calculations suggests that Bitcoin mining costs far more than any other financial system. Based on these calculations, the energy cost of Bitcoins is higher than that of many small countries. By the author:

"We find that the Bitcoin network, with an average electrical energy footprint of 491.4 to 765.4 kilowatt hours per transaction, consumes relatively much more energy than the traditional financial system. The resulting production of electronic waste could be equivalent to that of a small country like Luxembourg, with an impressive average footprint of four ampoules of e-waste per treated Bitcoin transaction. "

Wet or dry?

Such calculations have long been the argument against cryptocurrency, but further badysis was needed to compare these costs with "green" alternatives. The main point of contention concerns the Chinese province of Sichuan, where nearly 50% of the transformation takes place.

However, the report indicates that energy production in the region decreases considerably during the dry season. At this point, additional energy needs to be imported to maintain the grid, resulting in increased use of carbon.

This use can be dramatic compared to Visa or other financial networks. According to de Vries calculations, a single Bitcoin transaction generates approximately 233 to 363 kg of carbon dioxide. A Visa transaction, however, generates only a few grams.

This huge energy requirement could fuel an expanding electricity generation system, which would increase environmental costs. He notes:

"In the worst case, it would encourage the construction of new coal plants to achieve this goal."

Evidence debates

This most recent report should feed into the "evidence" debate about how to deal with transactions. Ethereum recently suggested that the move to evidence of power takeover rather than Bitcoin's evidence of work would solve the environmental crisis. This change was supposed to occur during the difficult junction of Constantinople.

However, as the delay shows, the PoS protocol for block generation still has a number of bugs. In fact, the problems were so dramatic that some have called for a complete shutdown of the PDS protocol option for security reasons.

Nevertheless, the Bitcoin network is more and more examined. For maximalists, this is not a problem. However, for adoption to continue, some solutions must be found. The Vries report makes it clear that renewable energy sources can not solve the problem.

"Given the fundamental challenges of joining Bitcoin with renewable energy, as well as the fact that energy consumption is not the only impact of Bitcoin on the environment, we should conclude that renewable energy are not the solution to Bitcoin's sustainability problem. "

Additional research needed

If it is certain that the growth of Bitcoin transactions will require more energy, the solution is not immediately apparent. This most recent report only highlights an issue that was already clear in the community.

While the PDS option is still under study, the cryptocurrency community needs to unite to badyze other potential solutions to the problem. Whether bitcoin remains the dominant currency or not, the future of cryptocurrency depends on increased research and creative solutions.

Do you think that the environmental impact of Bitcoin will eventually lead to the end of the network, or will other solutions come up? Let us know in the comments below!

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.