Within the framework of the DecentralizAr event, held online on August 19 and 20, the experts who discussed the energy consumption of cryptocurrency mining concluded that the benefits that Bitcoin brings outweigh the costs .
«Despite what is said about the energy consumption of Bitcoin, the network consumes much less energy than gold mining or copper mining, activities that They have been practiced for many years “, said Julian Dragonsch, electrical engineer member of the NGO Bitcoin Argentina.
Dragonsch was part of the panel that participated in the talk Energy consumption: problem or opportunity? , moderated by Rodolfo Andragnes, president of the NGO Bitcoin Argentina. They were accompanied by Sebastián Kind, former undersecretary of Renewable Energies of Argentina; and Sebastián Nill, CEO of the firm Aeternam Broker.
The objective, in Andragnes’s words, was to discuss Bitcoin mining and its consumption of electricity, which has been questioned under the assumption that it is excessive and harmful for the environment.
Hence, one of the first questions he asked the panel members revolve around how this activity generates social value.
Dragonsch highlighted that the energy consumption of mining is not as high as presumed , because according to their calculations, on average each user of the network only consumes about 70 watts, “the same that could be spent on heating or cooling” .
“If we cancel consumption above 70 watts per user, we should say goodbye to YouTube, Spotify and live TV, for example,” he said.
He also estimates that the overall energy expenditure of the Bitcoin blockchain is about 9.3 gigawatts of energy. He also cited the figures of a study carried out by CoinShares in 2019, which indicate – also contrary to what is said – that between 35% and 70% of that energy is composed of renewable sources .
Despite this, the engineer assured to respect the opposite positions. Consequently, “Bitcoin, like any human activity that is currently carried out, has the right to consume the energy that everyone is willing to pay for,” he adds.
Remember that miners pay by the energy they consume; it is not free. For this reason, does not think the criticism that puts the miners as “the bad guys in the movie” is fair.
Regarding the benefits it brings, he thinks that Bitcoin «is one of the most important global projects that we are seeing with a currency that is scarce and resistant to state attacks».
On this same topic, Sebastián Nill comments on his experience in the ecosystem. He spoke about how the sector generates jobs, and creates a space for people to interact and train.
I know many people who have benefited from that and I see it very valuable that people have the possibility of owning an asset with which they can save, because it does not depreciate over time as it happens with fiat money.
Sebastián Nill.
Use of renewable energy favors Bitcoin mining
Sebastian Kind, for his part, focused his speech on the issue of energy cleaning, questioning whether it is intended to qualify Bitcoin based on “the dirty or clean energy” it uses .
Beyond these ideas, the former Argentine official sees many growth opportunities in this sector , despite of the obstacles you still face. In this sense, the former official highlighted the increase in the use of wind and solar energy.
He said that, especially in Argentina, the use of this type of energy reached almost 10% of the electric energy matrix last year and marked a peak of 24% in recent days. Kind thinks that these renewable resources are useful and can be enhanced through Bitcoin mining.
This is a position that was also recently exposed at the Bitcoin Conference 2021 that was held in Miami In this event, reviewed by CriptoNoticias, several businessmen spoke about how mining favors the development of renewable energies.
However, Kind warned that, although renewable sources are profitable in the long term , require a high initial investment, particularly in Argentina. Consequently, whoever installs a power plant associated with a cryptocurrency mining company must guarantee a contract of approximately 20 years. Something that does not seem viable in the short term.
