Erik Weijers, a year ago
In an open letter, three editors of Bitcoin Magazine ask Elon Musk to reconsider his position on Bitcoin and the environment. The crux of their argument: the effect of Bitcoin mining on the energy market is that it will increase the production capacity of renewable energy. This is entirely aligned with Tesla's mission.
The writers of the open letter said they were disappointed when Tesla announced in May 2021 that it would no longer accept Bitcoin as a means of payment - just a few months after starting to accept it. Both Tesla's acceptance and subsequent refusal were significant symbolic gestures, which had a significant effect on the price of Bitcoin. Elon Musk stated at the time, "Tesla's mission is accelerating the interest of sustainable energy. We can't be the company that does that and also not do appropriate diligence on the energy usage of Bitcoin."
But according to the writers of the open letter, Bitcoin mining is an incentive for sustainable energy: it makes the production of renewable energy profitable under varying conditions. Indeed, the problem with renewable energy production is that peak production is often much higher than demand. By integrating Bitcoin mining into the production facility, a renewable project can be profitable even when there is low demand for energy. This makes it more interesting for investors to finance renewable projects.
Musk Tweeted in May 2021 that he would like to see at least 50% of Bitcoin mining done sustainably and that the trend should move in the right direction. The authors of the letter claim that currently 56% of the energy from Bitcoin mining is generated sustainably. Moreover, Bitcoin miners are increasingly leaning toward renewable energy. Not because they are such decent fellas, but simply because sustainability is usually the cheapest source of energy.
By the way, compare the mentioned 56% with the 20% renewable energy that comes out of the wall socket of the average American household. So that's the energy mix that Tesla's run on.
A final point from the writers is that too few fundamental questions have been asked and answered about the comparison between normal money (fiat) and Bitcoin. Too often a crude and contextless comparison is made: 'Bitcoin uses as much energy as country X'. Whereas the comparison should be between different money systems. The traditional money system also has a carbon footprint. Map that out and compare it to Bitcoin.
The letter writers suggest that such a comparative study should be conducted by neutral and esteemed researchers, acceptable to people from the pro and anti Bitcoin camp.
Dec 05, 2022
Since the fall of FTX, the number of times influential people have claimed Bitcoin or crypto will die, has gone up. But it is still remarkable that the number of these so-called 'Bitcoin obituaries' is in a downtrend. Are the sceptics less sure of their case?
Dec 02, 2022
A researcher and former climate activist has established a new methodology to determine the percentage of the Bitcoin mining energy that comes from renewable sources. By including so-called off-grid mining, he estimates Bitcoin's total energy generation at 52% from zero-emission sources.
Dec 01, 2022
In a blog post called Bitcoin's last stand, the ECB has revealed its negative stance towards Bitcoin. It views the current relative price stability as 'an artificially induced last gasp before the road to irrelevance'. The attack came at a day on which it also attacked the new uncensored Twitter.