We’ve seen many cases made in relation to why Bitcoin is not preferred. One that stands out the most is its excessive use of energy. Many businesses have since shared that they are less inclined to incorporate cryptocurrencies because it contradicts with their mission in helping to save the environment.
However, an equal number of individuals have noted that they have been reducing potential environmental damages by using renewable energy as their alternative. Interestingly, it has been revealed via Cosmos Magazine that such alternative does not bring a positive influence on the environment.
The person to have further investigated whether or not renewable energy is ideal for Bitcoin activities is Alex de Vries, who shared his post in “Joule”, noting that he has “decided to deep dive into this claim.”
After some analyses, De Vries has shared the following findings:
- Bitcoin network has an “electrical energy footprint” ranging between 491.4 to 765.4 kilowatt-hours per transaction
- Costs associated with Bitcoin exceed its energy use
- Calculating energy use is “impossible” because it is never clear as to which “devices are operating”.
- One transaction produces a carbon footprint anywhere between 233 and 363kg of CO2
De Vries further argues that the motivation for many companies’ use of renewable energy – especially using Sichuan, China as the main location – is that it allows them to save costs than rather than supporting the environment.
Due to the complications associated with calculating Bitcoin creation, its renewable energy usage, and the several other factors that exist, De Vries seems to be convinced that renewable energy isn’t the solution. In particular, he said:
“we should conclude that renewable energy is not the answer to Bitcoin’s sustainability problem.”