News Each Bitcoin transaction consumes 4,200 gallons of water — enough to fill a swimming pool — and could potentially cause freshwater shortages

[phxrider]

Really? Have anything to back up that "obvious" statement?

Sometimes "obvious" is used in context to denote the fact that people who are reasonably intelligent can recognize patterns of behavior, and with enough identical or similar patterns, predict actions and motivations with great accuracy and don't require direct evidence to be able to figure anything out.

In this case, the "obvious" AKA repeatable and predictable pattern is governments and their sycophants in the media regularly attack bitcoin and any other currency that deprives governments of control and monitoring of transactions.

 

[Bluoper]

If the bill was that much better when the cost line was drawn, there would probably be 5,000 nuclear reactors on the planet by now and abandon any other way of doing electricity.

It's mostly because they can't get public approval, if your a politician and your voters generally don't like nuclear power are you going to sign off on the bill letting a new reactor to be built?

 

[Order 66]

I think it is interesting how much power Bitcoin mining (and transactions) use. I didn't know that it used so much power or water.

 

[Amdlova]

Crypto people belive in free meal...

 

[Bluoper]

If the bill was that much better when the cost line was drawn, there would probably be 5,000 nuclear reactors on the planet by now and abandon any other way of doing electricity.

Also, back of the napkin math but it would only take about 2400 gen 4 reactors to power the entire planet.

 

[JTWrenn]

'd much rather see resource usage taxed appropriately than to see stuff getting outlawed. If you just make it too expensive, that will stop it because people won't do it if it's no longer profitable

I actually think they should just make it impossible to get ETF status. Set rules for crypto to be traded as a security or outlaw the trading of it. That would make it a much more stable and legal item and solve the other issues as well. Then you can do it all you want but it won't make you money except on the black market. Which is really another reason it needs to be moderated.

 

[George³]

I think it is interesting how much power Bitcoin mining (and transactions) use. I didn't know that it used so much power or water.

The degree of difficulty for mining a unit of Bitcoin is already many orders of magnitude higher than at the beginning.

 

[jasonf2]

I am still trying to sort the source data out here. Is the study implying that water ran through a hydroelectric dam generator is "waisted"? Because if that is being implied it simply isn't true. The energy is, but the fresh water is still fresh water on the dams output, just at a lower elevation. This isn't to mention that it is pretty common that several hydro stations exist on the same river. Also unless the facility is using an evaporative cooling system or dumping to a holding pond, virtually any water dumped down the drain will end up back into fresh water sources, albeit having to go through sewage treatment in most developed nations. I am not in any way defending the absolute fact that crypto wastes resources, especially electricity, but this article really needs to do a better job of sighting sources as it really does nothing to back its numbers and draws into question its validity on a whole.

 

[husker]

By its very nature, bitcoin has value precisely because it is expensive (and wasteful?) to mine. In this case, "expensive" means it takes a lot of time and energy. Some will correct me to say its value comes from its scarcity, but ultimately the scarcity is still a result of the expense in creating it. What I am saying here is that you can never, ever, ever make bitcoin not wasteful, otherwise it wouldn't be valuable. Start giving gold to everyone for free who wants it and it's value sinks. Imagine a future in which we have sustainable controlled fusion and energy is almost free with no environmental impact. My non-expert opinion is that bitcoin mining would go through the roof and be worth pennies on the dollar and suddenly get much less interesting. Or I'm wrong... there's alway that.

 

[helper800]

Thankfully, 75% of the planet surface is water.

Unfortunately, just because water covers most of the surface of the Earth, that means little for its total vs how much Earth there is. Water makes up just 0.02% of Earth's mass. Here is a diagram to show you the breakdown of how much of that water is freshwater. On this link there is a to scale blob of water superimposed over the US to serve as a visual reminder of how much we actually have.

Does my 500w graphic card that use water pump at the speed of 5 galons per hour consume 5 galons of water per hour? NO.
The whole topic is invalid, because water cooling for server does not make water unsuable, it only heats it up.

And no, there is no water vaporing, everything must be is in close loop or you risk destroying the electronic you try to cool due to humidity.

Nobody said that your graphics card uses gallons of water because it has a water pump that circulates at a rate of 5 gallons per minute. The article is saying that since evaporative cooling is used at a knowable rate compared to energy use in the industry, you can calculate the amount of water 'consumption' compared to the energy usage in the industry.

On a side note, your AIO cooler on the graphics card DOES lose water through a process called permeation.

We'll see if it turns out as big as many speculate but water usage???? Do some research on how much water a small chip plant requires.

Evaporative cooling also uses a massive amount of water, you should also do some research.

Yeah ... this article is BS, evaporation does not "use up" fresh water.
Every day the sun evaporates a trillion tons (1,000,000,000,000) of water across the globe. This comes out to be about something like 1,400 cubic kilometers worth of water or 1.4 x 10^15 liters. This water does not simple disappear, it goes into the atmosphere where it forms clouds, those clouds drift around on winds where they eventually dump that water back onto the surface in the form of rain.

The numbers used by server farms is laughable in the greater picture.

It certainly does 'use up' fresh water in the context given. Read the linked science article. If you evaporate water in dry arid climate, the water will condense into clouds and most likely rain where water is already overly abundant to the point of flooding, and soil erosion. I definitely agree with your last line though, what actual impact this has would need to be a study on its own. The numbers are important, any conclusion about the impact is extremely assumptive.

Total BS. No one is humidifier their miners. Water isn't consumed for cooling except maybe to fill the coolant lines once. And they're not on constantly. At the large facilities they switch off in times of heavy power consumption. Bitcoin fud. Who paid for this story?

Water is consumed if you define 'consumed' in a way that the source article did, give it a read. If you can show that water is evaporating at a knowable rate compared to energy usage in a particular industry on average, you can then calculate water usage of bitcoin based on the energy to complete a transaction.

 

[palladin9479]

I actually think they should just make it impossible to get ETF status. Set rules for crypto to be traded as a security or outlaw the trading of it. That would make it a much more stable and legal item and solve the other issues as well. Then you can do it all you want but it won't make you money except on the black market. Which is really another reason it needs to be moderated.

The thing with the popular crypto currencies is that they are decentralized, meaning there is no way for anyone to regular or govern them. The way transactions are the public ledger are handled, there is no agency or central authority authorizing anything, it's a form of peer to peer transaction. Makes it very useful for moving large amounts of wealth out of locations that might restrict such things.

It certainly does 'use up' fresh water in the context given.

It absolutely does not, I refuse to allow anyone to play with words to make ignorant and illogical statements. "I'm correct because I define being correct is whatever I say" is illogical and will be ignored.

 

[palladin9479]

It's mostly because they can't get public approval, if your a politician and your voters generally don't like nuclear power are you going to sign off on the bill letting a new reactor to be built?

Nuclear is an interesting topic because from an engineering point of view it's absolutely amazing. One nuclear plant, even old Gen II PWR types, can replace multiple coal and gas plants. Gen IV MSR's or LFTR's are one to two orders of magnitude more efficient then that old PWR design. Yes that is 10~100x more efficient because Gen II designs only consumed 1~3% of the available energy inside the fuel rods due to neutron poisoning + embrittlement making the rods completely unusable after consuming such small amounts of available energy. All the Gen IV designs involve refueling onsite via chemical reprocessing where you extract impurities and neutron poisons while inserting more fissionable material. Far less waste produced.

We don't see them because there has been a decades long moratorium on certification for new reactor designs. Only reactor designs under a certain size can be certified, which is how the US Navy gets around the moratorium. It's also why we are hearing about SMR's, they are trying to leverage that exception to certify small power plants.

 

[helper800]

It absolutely does not, I refuse to allow anyone to play with words to make ignorant and illogical statements. "I'm correct because I define being correct is whatever I say" is illogical and will be ignored.

What is a better word to use? Your argument is purely semantics then, zero substance. We, or the authors of the paper can argue for hours on what word is best used in this case. Instead of writing an article on what word to use in their paper they instead just defined what they meant, and moved on to the science. If you check the expense report of companies who use evaporative cooling you will see that water consumption, is a business expense, expenditure or whatever other word in a thesaurus you want to use for 'consumption.'

 

[palladin9479]

What is a better word to use? Your argument is purely semantics then, zero substance. We, or the authors of the paper can argue for hours on what word is best used in this case. Instead of writing an article on what word to use in their paper they instead just defined what they meant, and moved on to the science. If you check the expense report of companies who use evaporative cooling you will see that water consumption, is a business expense, expenditure or whatever other word in a thesaurus you want to use for 'consumption.'

It's simple, tell the truth without resulting to emotional manipulation.

Mining crypto currency or processing crypto transactions use's amount X of electricity on average. And that's pretty much it. Electrical usage has absolutely nothing to do with fresh water. Fresh water is not used for power generation. At most water will be used as a coolant for wasted thermal energy, that's a pretty small amount since you really want that energy to turn a steam turbine., so throwing it away is throwing money out the window.

Here is something you didn't know, I happen to live in the datacenter capital of the world. The place where ~70% of all transactions happens. Driving from work to home has me pass dozens of datacenters. They are absolutely not billowing giant steam clouds into the environment, evaporative cooling is a closed loop system. The water is merely a high efficiency thermal transport system, the water vapor gets collected at the top where it cools into liquid water and gets reused.

 

[helper800]

Nuclear is an interesting topic because from an engineering point of view it's absolutely amazing. One nuclear plant, even old Gen II PWR types, can replace multiple coal and gas plants. Gen IV MSR's or LFTR's are one to two orders of magnitude more efficient then that old PWR design. Yes that is 10~100x more efficient because Gen II designs only consumed 1~3% of the available energy inside the fuel rods due to neutron poisoning + embrittlement making the rods completely unusable after consuming such small amounts of available energy. All the Gen IV designs involve refueling onsite via chemical reprocessing where you extract impurities and neutron poisons while inserting more fissionable material. Far less waste produced.

We don't see them because there has been a decades long moratorium on certification for new reactor designs. Only reactor designs under a certain size can be certified, which is how the US Navy gets around the moratorium. It's also why we are hearing about SMR's, they are trying to leverage that exception to certify small power plants.

We definitely agree here. Its crazy to me that 1 power plant in california from the 70s powers about 9% of the state. Or 0.99% of the country.

 

[helper800]

It's simple, tell the truth without resulting to emotional manipulation.

Mining crypto currency or processing crypto transactions use's amount X of electricity on average. And that's pretty much it. Electrical usage has absolutely nothing to do with fresh water. Fresh water is not used for power generation. At most water will be used as a coolant for wasted thermal energy, that's a pretty small amount since you really want that energy to turn a steam turbine., so throwing it away is throwing money out the window.

That first line is a component I did not realize, I guess that language can be weaponized in that manner.

So you are saying the article is lying about its data with regards to evaporative cooling? Though not impossible, I guess. A comparative analogy can showcase my point that the secondary effects in relation to usage of a resource is completely relevant. As a consequence of the energy I use, I pay a fee in USD every month. Wouldn't it be unwise for me to completely disregard the cost of energy just because money has nothing to do with its generation if I am trying to make a budget?

 

[JTWrenn]

The thing with the popular crypto currencies is that they are decentralized, meaning there is no way for anyone to regular or govern them. The way transactions are the public ledger are handled, there is no agency or central authority authorizing anything, it's a form of peer to peer transaction. Makes it very useful for moving large amounts of wealth out of locations that might restrict such things.

That is why we regulate the trading posts so to speak. THose are not decentralized. You put pressure on the coins to make the change to more efficient stake based mining by making only efficient coins allowed to be traded as ETFs. Then a year or so later you list all coins as securities legally....which is what they are, and you ban commercial trading for anything that doesn't use efficient production...ie stake or anything but brute force.

The people who own/produce the coins then get to decide, but money from ETF will push up coins that are efficient and it should organically sort itself out. Then after the sorting period ban commercial trading of whatever is left. You will pull all the air out of brute force mining via financial rules that should be applied anyway.

 

[palladin9479]

So you are saying the article is lying about its data with regards to evaporative cooling?

Yes, the source article is trying to emotionally manipulate the reader to agreeing with the author on some issue or other, aka propaganda.

Evaporative cooling is largely a closed loop system, and I say largely because there is an overpressure release value and there is always a slow gradual leak of water vapor into the surrounding environment. You want to minimize the escaping water because Loudoun Water will come for their pound of flesh.

 

[palladin9479]

That is why we regulate the trading posts so to speak. THose are not decentralized. You put pressure on the coins to make the change to more efficient stake based mining by making only efficient coins allowed to be traded as ETFs. Then a year or so later you list all coins as securities legally....which is what they are, and you ban commercial trading for anything that doesn't use efficient production...ie stake or anything but brute force.

The people who own/produce the coins then get to decide, but money from ETF will push up coins that are efficient and it should organically sort itself out. Then after the sorting period ban commercial trading of whatever is left. You will pull all the air out of brute force mining via financial rules that should be applied anyway.

I think you misunderstand how BtC or Eth trading works.

I have $10,000, me and someone agree to exchange private property, they give me 5 ETH and I give them $10,000. This is a private transaction, and while there may be IRS reporting requirements there is no law that says we can't trade with each other. The public ledger is updated to reflect that Account B transferred 5 ETH to Account A, there is no central authorization required for this. I can then go to anywhere in the world, meet Person C, and we decide to exchange my 5 ETH for something they have. The public ledger gets updated showing Account A transferred 5ETH to Account C, again no approving authority is involved.

Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) has absolutely nothing to do with crypto currency. An ETF is a business entity, crypto currency is a commodity. Now we can have business entities that trade commodities, I make a business entity named PalladinProCoin and establish an ETF that invests and tracks DogeCoin. You buy units of PPC and in turn PPC takes your capital and buys DogeCoin. That is no different then a Money Market Fund or Mutual Fund.

 

[helper800]

Yes, the source article is trying to emotionally manipulate the reader to agreeing with the author on some issue or other, aka propaganda.

Evaporative cooling is largely a closed loop system, and I say largely because there is an overpressure release value and there is always a slow gradual leak of water vapor into the surrounding environment. You want to minimize the escaping water because Loudoun Water will come for their pound of flesh.

I can understand the first line, but I did not realize this until now, after I read the source material. The source material without that potential manipulation lost on me, seems to be on point with the data.

I am familiar with how most liquid cooling works in this manner, but even so, this source material claims their numbers of evaporated water being released is proportional to 4200 gallons of water per bitcoin transaction. So either they completely screwed up their data or their premises on how these systems work to come up with their numbers.

 

[George³]

Now we can have business entities that trade commodities

I think that any income from business no matter how operate charged with taxes?

 

[DavidLejdar]

Yeah ... this article is BS, evaporation does not "use up" fresh water.
Every day the sun evaporates a trillion tons (1,000,000,000,000) of water across the globe. This comes out to be about something like 1,400 cubic kilometers worth of water or 1.4 x 10^15 liters. This water does not simple disappear, it goes into the atmosphere where it forms clouds, those clouds drift around on winds where they eventually dump that water back onto the surface in the form of rain.

The numbers used by server farms is laughable in the greater picture.

Water evaporating from the ocean is one thing. A data center sitting in the middle of a desert, und using fresh water from a well, with the evaporated water then raining down somewhere else, that is a different issue for the locals, as e.g. this article mentions.

And yes, closed circuit cooling does indeed exist (indirect evaporative cooling). But how come articles, such as the linked one, talk about a data center "gobbling up water"? It may not be a physicist, who wrote the article. But there wouldn't be much a complaint there, if the data center would need only once in a while a few gallons, would it?

In any case, my household electricity is sourced from renewables. And that helps at least to reduce the impact of water used in electricity production, leaving some for drinking later. Which sounds nice to me.

 

[palladin9479]

I am familiar with how most liquid cooling works in this manner, but even so, this source material claims their numbers of evaporated water being released is proportional to 4200 gallons of water per bitcoin transaction. So either they completely screwed up their data or their premises on how these systems work to come up with their numbers.

They are saying that each transaction requires the cooling worth of 4200 gallons, which is plainly wrong. Like insanely out of this world wrong. Do you realize how much energy it takes to boil 4200 gallons or water?

Water requires the input of 4.2 KJ to raise each kilogram by 1 degree centigrade. A gallon of water weighs 3.79 kilograms. Assuming you're raising it from 20C to 100C, the energy required is 4.2 KJ * 3.79 kg * 80C = 1273.44 KJ, or roughly one-third of a kilowatt-hour to bring the water to a boil. 4200 gallons would be 5,348,448 KJ worth of energy. 1kg of TnT has 4.6 million J worth of energy. That article is trying to say that each BtC transaction is 5,348kg's worth of TnT, or 5.3 megagram which is also known as ton.

That ... is a lot of power, like power a home for hundred years type power. We are not setting off a bombs worth of power every time someone trades crypto. Basic physics knowledge says none of that article checks out.

 

[palladin9479]

Water evaporating from the ocean is one thing. A data center sitting in the middle of a desert, und using fresh water from a well, with the evaporated water then raining down somewhere else, that is a different issue for the locals, as e.g. this article mentions.

And yes, closed circuit cooling does indeed exist (indirect evaporative cooling). But how come articles, such as the linked one, talk about a data center "gobbling up water"? It may not be a physicist, who wrote the article. But there wouldn't be much a complaint there, if the data center would need only once in a while a few gallons, would it?

In any case, my household electricity is sourced from renewables. And that helps at least to reduce the impact of water used in electricity production, leaving some for drinking later. Which sounds nice to me.

Did you think that the article is just flat out lying? The numbers mentioned are so outlandish that anyone with some physics knowledge should laugh in the authors face.

And you don't build datacenters in the desert... you build then near an Ocean. Half the worlds datacenters are in the DC Metro Area, specifically Loudoun and Fairfax county.

 

[palladin9479]

I think that any income from business no matter how operate charged with taxes?

Yes all net business revenue is taxable, doesn't matter if I'm selling hotdogs, cars, frisbees or financial services.