My understanding is that there is basically a fixed amount of energy being used (fluctuating mostly due to mining profitability) for the ~fixed block rate. How does adding transactions increase the energy use?
My understanding is that you pay money to the miners to get your transaction included, and the money you pay (on average) goes to pay for electricity, so the marginal difference of making a transaction is that your transaction pays more than whatever transaction would have otherwise been included, and ~100% of that extra money becomes burned electricity.
Energy use is proportional to the revenues gained from mining.
Revenues are based on the block coinbase reward and transaction fees from transactions (txns) included in the block. The coinbase reward is currently a large majority of mining revenue, but this will decrease over time according to the coinbase halving schedule every ~4 years.
Since block capacity is arbitrarily limited to 1MB, txn throughput is limited. Therefore, all txns contribute to txn fee competition. There is a transaction fee market where users must outbid each other to ensure their txns are incorporated into the blockchain in a timely manner.
The net effect is that txn demand does contribute to mining rewards and ultimately the energy used for mining. But it is a very small effect at present:
* Txn fee competition only rarely kicks in. The network operates most of the time without substantial mempool backlog. https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,6m This does change with market activity, and we are certainly looking at more txn fees overall in the future.
* Coinbase rewards dominate mining revenues, so the effect is proportionally small. As these rewards decrease in the future, txn effects will have bigger effects.
The upshot of all of this is a shift into a 'mature' paradigm of blockchain security funding. It's a pretty big shift and easily the biggest unknown in the future of Bitcoin. More and more, the focus will be on scaling and whether the opposing goals of affordable transactions and miner revenue (and therefore network security) can be balanced. There are also interesting technical issues such as whether txn-fee dominated revenue will present new malicious actions. Namely, whether miners can withhold blocks to gain advantage, plaguing the network with reorgs and further centralizing mining.
The bitcoin network will take exactly the same amount of energy mining an empty or full block. So a transaction does not use much energy (except for propagating it etc).
By holding bitcoin, you reduce the supply, thus increasing the price of bitcoin. By increasing the price, you increase the value of the block reward, thus making it more attractive to mine bitcoin. So actually holding it, not transacting, will increase energy consumption.
I've been doing a lot of reading & thinking on this lately as I just finished building https://carbon.fyi
Your take is 100% correct, but we still opted to use Ethereum Gas units as our "emissions factor" because it represents useage of and relative benefit from the Ethereum network.
We are interested in raising money for carbon offsets, so if we ask the question of "who pays?" it wouldn't be fair to place the burden on miners when all users benefit from the security and stability that comes from mining.
I'd eventually like to develop a model that allocates emissions based on "unit of time held" which is a more accurate allegory for 'benefit' for speculative assets like Bitcoin (if we are honest about Bitcoin's purpose), and because of the macroeconomic reasons you mentioned.
It's an interesting problem and discussion because unlike driving a car or eating meat, simply reducing consumption won't fix the problem, and yet we would all agree heavy users or benefactors of the network should bear more of the burden.
Well with some quick google search, in the US there's an average of 4816 trees per acre of primarily forest land, so 1 trillion trees you'd just need 207.641.196 acres.
The total area of forest land in US is 501 million acres, with 2.5 trillion trees of all types.
So you'd need to just find 207 million acres of viable land, 1 trillion saplings and enough people to plant them.
In my point of view, that's a bit challenging - but I'm no expert in such matters.
I think it is important to note that the 4816 figure - presumably from the Forest Services report on New England forests - includes on average 4600 immature seedlings and saplings which will not reach maturity due to space requirements, and 200 trees with trunks larger than 5". Even if we consider an aggressive distribution of 750 trees/acre you're planting a landmass equivalent to 10x California. Challenging indeed!
If there are a billion people in the world able to plant trees, that's a 1000 trees each. That's about 10-20 days of work per person (I have planted about 50 trees in half a day once). You're right, this would be easy.
You will need land which don't encroach on agriculture or other industrial use land. Land which gets enough rainfall every year. Also planting is just one step in the process , you will need to maintain it, if the trees actually have to grow.
tree planting ≠ forest planting.
But on that notion a “productive” artificial forest solves this issue.
build forest with plants that provide utility. But are family to the local environment. it’s a concept that has been proven
Would you not then need to wait until they were mature enough to have extracted a large enough quantity of Co2, and then chip them up and bury them back underground where all the oil came from in order to net extract Co2 before planting new trees in their place and going for another round.
Otherwise the Co2 will be returned to the atmosphere once the tree rots or is burned for fuel.
Forests that we don't cut down is called reservations.
In Sweden there is a law that states that any forest cut down must be replanted unless used for farming or new buildings. I also recall Norawy having the similar law. If we counted that as carbon removal, we would have a massive carbon net negative from this pretty old law.
The law is not a carbon removal strategy. It simply maintain current biomass over time.
fruit trees mostly also, air cleaning + food (and great food), double win. Figs, clementines, mandarines (currently I'm finding so many around, just on the ground, in more or less abandoned gardens), persimmons, medlars..
I wonder if it's possible to have some CO2-eating algae in water that you bubble air through. The idea being you have something biological and microscopic with a quick lifecycle, so you're taking advantage of each point in a 3D volume. Question is, it surely needs nutrients other than air, do you have to keep pumping those in or is the system self-contained? Is the sequestered CO2 in the form of dead algae you scrape / filter from the top / bottom? What's the maximum depth before sunlight's insufficient?
(As opposed to something like planting trees that's inherently 2D and takes many years to reach maturity.)
There's a tough reality check on CO2: it's an oxide, and it's quite expensive to break.
I mean it's fine trying to save the planet and stop emitting co2, but so far, unless you do it by force, it's quite unlikely that anyone will really manage to convince people to do it, or find some miracle solution, or to organize something so that people make the efforts to avoid emissions.
We should just prepare to migrate north, grow food elsewhere, move away from hot regions, and more important: find more and more techs that allow every humans to protect themselves from heat.
I'm sorry, but most of that is nonsense (besides oxides being tough to break). Where is this "elsewhere" you're planning to grow food for the /world population/? Protecting people from heat is one thing but what about animals that most people depend on for survival? Fremen suits for them as well? What about bees, birds and the myriad living things that we are only dimly aware of yet utterly depend on and that are adapted to live only under certain conditions?
People will have to change their behavior to survive collectively. Technology is part of the solution (renewable energy, zoom calls instead of business travel...) but the idea that everyone needs a car that just sits around idly 95% of the time is ludicrous. If humanity is to survive, this sort of widespread ludicrous and unsustainable behavior needs to stop...
I'm sorry if I come across a bit harsh but your comment sounds quite defeatist. If you need an argument mir grounded in economics, have a look at the relative price of coal power: even ignoring the health and climate effects, it's getting too expensive compared to renewables (lots of asterisks on that one but the gist is true).
>everyone needs a car that just sits around idly 95% of the time is ludicrous.
I've never understood this argument. People don't trash their cars like broken appliances. Most cars get driven until they crumble to dust at the 300k mile mark. Whether a car is idle is completely irrelevant.
There are problems with cars and dependent city planning but utilization rates of cars is not one of them. Far from it.
Trees are a buffer, not a permanent sequester. Planting trees buys time, but it's not a gigaton scalable solution.
Eventually those trees die and rot and rejoin the natural carbon cycle. That's what's so fucked up about the CO2 emissions problem: the carbon we've emitted to the atmosphere (and has been absorbed into the oceans) was previously locked out of the natural carbon cycle as coal, limestone, etc... But burning/creating concrete/ etc has put it back into the active loop.
Any solution has to take the carbon out of that loop permanently if we want to address the greenhouse gas problem, reduce the total amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are 3 different states of carbon on earth: a solid/liquid from underground (oil, coal, bitumen, etc); in organic matter (trees, animals, plants, etc); and in the atmosphere (CO2, methane, and others).
If we assume that the earth is a closed system and no carbon can leave or enter earth, it means that when carbon gets transformed from its coal/oil state it must either become organic matter or atmospheric gasses — the two other states of carbon.
Conversely, to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon we must either transform it to organic matter (trees, animals, etc.) or put it back into the ground.
The issue with transforming atmospheric carbon to organic carbon is that we have already reached and passed the global maxima for organic matter during the prehistoric times before human deforestation. At best we could plow down all the cities and civilizations and plant forests in their place and we would reobtain the global maxima of organic carbon again. But even at this point of global maxima of organic matter, we would still have all the carbon which came from coal/oil present in the atmosphere.
Finally there is the natural process of transforming organic carbon to ground carbon, but that takes millions of years — which is a few orders of magnitude too long for us to address the crisis.
This is why artificially sequestering carbon back into to ground is a vital part of addressing climate change.
Carbon removal: taking carbon out of the ambient air rather than decarbonizing the system
Gigaton scale removal by 2030: 5 orders of magnitude beyond current capacities. That's only one order of magnitude less than Earth's yearly emissions (40 GT) and 3 orders of magnitude less than Earth's excess emissions (1,000 GT).
Solution agnostic: Whether you call it "natural" or "technological" what matters is it can remove carbon and scale without harming the rest of the system
B. For those of you who want to work on this prize:
1. AirMiners - the premier community of 800+ scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers, artists, hackers, and business peeps working on solutions to pull carbon from the air
One of these days, once this ceases to be a political football, people will finally accept the reality of the matter and allow scientists to speak the truth about all of this.
What is that truth:
We cannot fix atmospheric CO2 concentration. The amount of energy and resources necessary to accomplish such a feat is far more likely to kill all life on this planet than reduce CO2 by even 10 PPM.
I know people don't like to hear this but I still haven't found anyone who is able to refute the most basic of arguments proving this reality. I have challenged many. What usually happens is a range between ignoring the question and insults (or both).
This is about pulling our heads out of the sand to take a look at the data in order to understand what it is screaming at us very loudly. It goes something like this:
If humanity --all of us-- left the planet tomorrow and we took all of our technology, cars, planes, buildings --everything-- with us...it would take somewhere in the range of 50K to 100K years for atmospheric CO2 to come down by 100 ppm (which is roughly what we need).
This isn't me saying it. We have very accurate data on this. We know, with a very high degree of certainty, what the atmosphere looked like and how long it took for CO2 to increase and decrease when humanity was but a bunch of apes on trees.
This data is provided to us by the 800,000 years of ice core atmospheric data we already have. Ice core atmospheric composition sampling is a highly accurate way to learn about what the atmosphere looked like in the past. And, again, to be redundant, we have data going back 800,000 years.
This means we KNOW how the atmosphere behaved when we were not here.
This also means we KNOW how it will behave is we all left.
If it takes the planet 50,000 to 100,000 years for a 100 ppm reduction --without humanity around-- there's NOTHING we can do at a small scale (solar panels world-wide, stop using cars, stop using planes, ban all fossil fuels, etc.) that will accelerate the slope at all. If we stay on the planet the rate of change is GREATER than 50K to 100K for 100 ppm, because we are contributing more CO2 to the equation.
Please don't take my word for it. Look at the data and you should have the same revelation about this issue I had many years ago. This does not mean we should not make an effort to clean-up our act, there are many reasons for which this is a good idea and none of them anything to do with climate change. I does mean we need to not lie to ourselves and start having real conversations about this stuff rather than, on the one hand, denying it, and, on the other, thinking we can actually affect planetary scale problems with truly insignificant measures. Hint: Everything is insignificant when compared to humanity leaving the planet. Both extreme positions are unreasonable and delusional.
Finally, a problem: Scientists, researchers, don't want to talk about this reality because their careers would be over if they did. At the very least their grants would evaporate. This is a terrible side-effect of the religion climate change has become. We need to free our researchers so that they can be honest about what we know and we can put them to work on how to deal with reality.
Here's were you will find the 800,000 years of ice core data:
Here's a paper that explains why it is that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise exponentially even if we switch the the most optimal forms of renewable energy world-wide:
I hear bitcoin is consuming electricity equivalent to what Argentina uses in a year. We could design a currency that's more ecological friendly, that would reduce the amount of carbon we'd need to spew.
58 comments
[ 8.2 ms ] story [ 323 ms ] threadMy understanding is that there is basically a fixed amount of energy being used (fluctuating mostly due to mining profitability) for the ~fixed block rate. How does adding transactions increase the energy use?
Revenues are based on the block coinbase reward and transaction fees from transactions (txns) included in the block. The coinbase reward is currently a large majority of mining revenue, but this will decrease over time according to the coinbase halving schedule every ~4 years.
Since block capacity is arbitrarily limited to 1MB, txn throughput is limited. Therefore, all txns contribute to txn fee competition. There is a transaction fee market where users must outbid each other to ensure their txns are incorporated into the blockchain in a timely manner.
The net effect is that txn demand does contribute to mining rewards and ultimately the energy used for mining. But it is a very small effect at present:
* Txn fee competition only rarely kicks in. The network operates most of the time without substantial mempool backlog. https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,6m This does change with market activity, and we are certainly looking at more txn fees overall in the future.
* Coinbase rewards dominate mining revenues, so the effect is proportionally small. As these rewards decrease in the future, txn effects will have bigger effects.
The upshot of all of this is a shift into a 'mature' paradigm of blockchain security funding. It's a pretty big shift and easily the biggest unknown in the future of Bitcoin. More and more, the focus will be on scaling and whether the opposing goals of affordable transactions and miner revenue (and therefore network security) can be balanced. There are also interesting technical issues such as whether txn-fee dominated revenue will present new malicious actions. Namely, whether miners can withhold blocks to gain advantage, plaguing the network with reorgs and further centralizing mining.
Your take is 100% correct, but we still opted to use Ethereum Gas units as our "emissions factor" because it represents useage of and relative benefit from the Ethereum network.
We are interested in raising money for carbon offsets, so if we ask the question of "who pays?" it wouldn't be fair to place the burden on miners when all users benefit from the security and stability that comes from mining.
I'd eventually like to develop a model that allocates emissions based on "unit of time held" which is a more accurate allegory for 'benefit' for speculative assets like Bitcoin (if we are honest about Bitcoin's purpose), and because of the macroeconomic reasons you mentioned.
It's an interesting problem and discussion because unlike driving a car or eating meat, simply reducing consumption won't fix the problem, and yet we would all agree heavy users or benefactors of the network should bear more of the burden.
You need space, you need to plant/nurture them, and assure they survive long enough/remain healthy.
The total area of forest land in US is 501 million acres, with 2.5 trillion trees of all types.
So you'd need to just find 207 million acres of viable land, 1 trillion saplings and enough people to plant them.
In my point of view, that's a bit challenging - but I'm no expert in such matters.
Otherwise the Co2 will be returned to the atmosphere once the tree rots or is burned for fuel.
Individual trees die and decay, but their place is taken by their offspring and the total biomass of the forest does not decrease over time.
The amount of carbon stored in the forest is approximately proportional to that mass.
Forests that we don't cut down is called reservations.
In Sweden there is a law that states that any forest cut down must be replanted unless used for farming or new buildings. I also recall Norawy having the similar law. If we counted that as carbon removal, we would have a massive carbon net negative from this pretty old law.
The law is not a carbon removal strategy. It simply maintain current biomass over time.
(As opposed to something like planting trees that's inherently 2D and takes many years to reach maturity.)
Hmm, some quick Googling shows lots of results for algae carbon capture, e.g. this company: https://newatlas.com/environment/algae-fueled-bioreactor-car...
You can also check out the AirMiners Index to scan through the other folks working on solutions:
http://www.airminers.org/explore
There was a time when I was convinced Algae was the way forward but the rate limiting step for them just don't make sense.
Unless things have changed since I last researched this
I mean it's fine trying to save the planet and stop emitting co2, but so far, unless you do it by force, it's quite unlikely that anyone will really manage to convince people to do it, or find some miracle solution, or to organize something so that people make the efforts to avoid emissions.
We should just prepare to migrate north, grow food elsewhere, move away from hot regions, and more important: find more and more techs that allow every humans to protect themselves from heat.
People will have to change their behavior to survive collectively. Technology is part of the solution (renewable energy, zoom calls instead of business travel...) but the idea that everyone needs a car that just sits around idly 95% of the time is ludicrous. If humanity is to survive, this sort of widespread ludicrous and unsustainable behavior needs to stop...
I'm sorry if I come across a bit harsh but your comment sounds quite defeatist. If you need an argument mir grounded in economics, have a look at the relative price of coal power: even ignoring the health and climate effects, it's getting too expensive compared to renewables (lots of asterisks on that one but the gist is true).
I've never understood this argument. People don't trash their cars like broken appliances. Most cars get driven until they crumble to dust at the 300k mile mark. Whether a car is idle is completely irrelevant.
There are problems with cars and dependent city planning but utilization rates of cars is not one of them. Far from it.
How exactly? Voluntarily? Or by force?
Use your clout to persuade governments to donate to and support the cause.
It would be the best use of that money.
Eventually those trees die and rot and rejoin the natural carbon cycle. That's what's so fucked up about the CO2 emissions problem: the carbon we've emitted to the atmosphere (and has been absorbed into the oceans) was previously locked out of the natural carbon cycle as coal, limestone, etc... But burning/creating concrete/ etc has put it back into the active loop.
Any solution has to take the carbon out of that loop permanently if we want to address the greenhouse gas problem, reduce the total amount of carbon in the cycle.
Trees can be the perfect buffer foe our societys transition to a carbon neutral economy.
There are 3 different states of carbon on earth: a solid/liquid from underground (oil, coal, bitumen, etc); in organic matter (trees, animals, plants, etc); and in the atmosphere (CO2, methane, and others).
If we assume that the earth is a closed system and no carbon can leave or enter earth, it means that when carbon gets transformed from its coal/oil state it must either become organic matter or atmospheric gasses — the two other states of carbon.
Conversely, to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon we must either transform it to organic matter (trees, animals, etc.) or put it back into the ground.
The issue with transforming atmospheric carbon to organic carbon is that we have already reached and passed the global maxima for organic matter during the prehistoric times before human deforestation. At best we could plow down all the cities and civilizations and plant forests in their place and we would reobtain the global maxima of organic carbon again. But even at this point of global maxima of organic matter, we would still have all the carbon which came from coal/oil present in the atmosphere.
Finally there is the natural process of transforming organic carbon to ground carbon, but that takes millions of years — which is a few orders of magnitude too long for us to address the crisis.
This is why artificially sequestering carbon back into to ground is a vital part of addressing climate change.
Forests are really the simple solution. it’s a matter of time frames not net carbon in and out.
They have a perpetual self-sustaining cycle of growing new trees and turning the old ones into soil and burying them under more soil.
Carbon removal: taking carbon out of the ambient air rather than decarbonizing the system
Gigaton scale removal by 2030: 5 orders of magnitude beyond current capacities. That's only one order of magnitude less than Earth's yearly emissions (40 GT) and 3 orders of magnitude less than Earth's excess emissions (1,000 GT).
Solution agnostic: Whether you call it "natural" or "technological" what matters is it can remove carbon and scale without harming the rest of the system
If you prefer a video summary, here's my take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNq8Hb7nSVY&feature=youtu.be
B. For those of you who want to work on this prize:
1. AirMiners - the premier community of 800+ scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers, artists, hackers, and business peeps working on solutions to pull carbon from the air
http://airminers.org
2. Air Mining 101 - Guide to getting started in carbon removal, including links to the Carbon Removal Academy and other resources
http://coda.io/@tito/air-mining-101
“Order of magnitude” is a dumb, imprecise, and unnecessary expression.
https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk
What is that truth:
We cannot fix atmospheric CO2 concentration. The amount of energy and resources necessary to accomplish such a feat is far more likely to kill all life on this planet than reduce CO2 by even 10 PPM.
I know people don't like to hear this but I still haven't found anyone who is able to refute the most basic of arguments proving this reality. I have challenged many. What usually happens is a range between ignoring the question and insults (or both).
This is about pulling our heads out of the sand to take a look at the data in order to understand what it is screaming at us very loudly. It goes something like this:
If humanity --all of us-- left the planet tomorrow and we took all of our technology, cars, planes, buildings --everything-- with us...it would take somewhere in the range of 50K to 100K years for atmospheric CO2 to come down by 100 ppm (which is roughly what we need).
This isn't me saying it. We have very accurate data on this. We know, with a very high degree of certainty, what the atmosphere looked like and how long it took for CO2 to increase and decrease when humanity was but a bunch of apes on trees.
This data is provided to us by the 800,000 years of ice core atmospheric data we already have. Ice core atmospheric composition sampling is a highly accurate way to learn about what the atmosphere looked like in the past. And, again, to be redundant, we have data going back 800,000 years.
This means we KNOW how the atmosphere behaved when we were not here.
This also means we KNOW how it will behave is we all left.
If it takes the planet 50,000 to 100,000 years for a 100 ppm reduction --without humanity around-- there's NOTHING we can do at a small scale (solar panels world-wide, stop using cars, stop using planes, ban all fossil fuels, etc.) that will accelerate the slope at all. If we stay on the planet the rate of change is GREATER than 50K to 100K for 100 ppm, because we are contributing more CO2 to the equation.
Please don't take my word for it. Look at the data and you should have the same revelation about this issue I had many years ago. This does not mean we should not make an effort to clean-up our act, there are many reasons for which this is a good idea and none of them anything to do with climate change. I does mean we need to not lie to ourselves and start having real conversations about this stuff rather than, on the one hand, denying it, and, on the other, thinking we can actually affect planetary scale problems with truly insignificant measures. Hint: Everything is insignificant when compared to humanity leaving the planet. Both extreme positions are unreasonable and delusional.
Finally, a problem: Scientists, researchers, don't want to talk about this reality because their careers would be over if they did. At the very least their grants would evaporate. This is a terrible side-effect of the religion climate change has become. We need to free our researchers so that they can be honest about what we know and we can put them to work on how to deal with reality.
Here's were you will find the 800,000 years of ice core data:
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical...
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
Here's a paper that explains why it is that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise exponentially even if we switch the the most optimal forms of renewable energy world-wide:
https:...
It’s a bit of a head scratcher to suppose we had enough influence on the planet one way but couldn’t steer it in the other