The time to divest from Bitcoin is now
The time to divest from Bitcoin is now, Independent Australia, By John Quiggin | 29 May 2021 The rising price of cryptocurrencies is resulting in higher demands for electricity in order to produce them, writes Professor John Quiggin.
TWO RECENT DEVELOPMENTS in financial markets have big and directly opposed implications for the future of the global climate. On the one hand, financial institutions of all kinds are divesting from carbon-based fuels. On the other hand, they are increasingly embracing one of the most pointless and destructive trends of recent times — cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.
Let’s start with the good news. Not so long ago, divestment from coal mines and coal-fired power stations appeared a symbolic moral gesture, undertaken by socially-minded investors who were willing to narrow their investment options rather than profit from environmental destruction. As it turned out, the socially-minded investors did well, while the hardheads who kept coal miners and oil companies in their portfolios lost badly.
Jumping forward to the present, divestment has become the norm, though the process has typically been made in a series of baby steps. At this point, nearly all financial institutions in developed market economies have limited their exposure to coal and indicated a strategy to end any association with thermal coal, used in power generation. (Alternatives to metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking, are in an early stage of development, unlike solar and wind electricity generation)………………….
The progress being made on divestment from coal contrasts sharply with the eager embrace of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Although they were once supposed to replace existing currencies as a medium of exchange, cryptocurrencies are now used only as a speculative asset and as a way of conducting illegal transactions like ransomware payments.
The “proof of work” process by which Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies are generated depends on “miners” competing to solve increasingly elaborate, but pointless, mathematical problems using specially designed computers and lots of electricity. The higher the price of Bitcoins, the more electricity it is worth burning to generate them.
Calculations a few years ago suggested that the electricity used in Bitcoin mining was comparable to the total demand of a small country like New Zealand. But as the price has risen, so has the demand on electricity resources, to the point where abandoned coal-fired power stations are being reopened. Even when Bitcoin is mined using renewable electricity, that electricity is diverted from other uses, which must then rely on coal-fired or gas-fired electricity.
As concerns have risen about the environmental damage caused by cryptocurrencies, attempts have been made to find “green” ways of producing them. Past efforts of this kind have failed, but perhaps these will succeed. However, we don’t have time to wait and see. Financial institutions need to divest from cryptocurrencies and financial regulators need to shut them down. When and if an environmentally safe version emerges, we can take another look.
John Quiggin is Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland. His new book, The Economic Consequences of the Pandemic, will be published by Yale University Press in late 2021…………… https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-time-to-divest-from-bitcoin-is-now,15137
A world based on 100% renewable energy by 2035 is technically and economically feasible
Renew Extra 22nd May 2021, Dave Elliott: 100% renewable energy ‘is possible by 2035’. A world based on 100% renewable energy is possible, and we are able to transform the energy system fast enough to avoid the climate catastrophe!’ So says the Joint declaration of the global 100% renewable energy strategy group.
Set up initially by a core of 7 leading climate and energy scientists, including Prof. Mark Jacobson from Stanford in the USA, and Prof Christopher Breyer from LUT in Finland, and then backed by 40 other scientists, it claims that ‘a 100% renewable electricity supply is possible by 2030, and with substantial political will around the world, 100% renewable energy is also technically and economically feasible across all other sectors by 2035.
A 100% RE system will be more cost effective than will a future system based primarily on fossil and nuclear power. The
transformation to 100% renewables will boost the global economy, create millions more jobs than lost, and substantially reduce health problems and mortality due to pollution’.
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2021/05/100-renewable-energy-is-possible-by-2035.html
Renewable energy cheated in uneasy coalition with Exelon nuclear, in Illinois
How Pay-to-Play Politics and an Uneasy Coalition of Nuclear and Renewable Energy Led to a Flawed Illinois Law, Inside Climate News
State lawmakers are running out of time to fix 2016 clean energy legislation.
By Dan Gearino, Inside Climate News and Brett Chase, Chicago Sun-TimesMay 21, 2021This article is the result of a partnership between Inside Climate News and the Chicago Sun-Times.
CHICAGO—Just over five years ago, the Illinois Legislature passed a plan that aimed to build a solar power industry from scratch while saving thousands of jobs at two struggling nuclear plants.
The Future Energy Jobs Act brought together environmental groups, the owner of the nuclear plants—Exelon Corp., unions and consumer advocates. The result was a plan marrying nuclear subsidies with support for renewable energy that purported to create tens of thousands of solar power jobs as well as put the state on track to move away from fossil fuels and meet its pre-existing target of having 25 percent renewable energy by 2025.
But the law sputtered from the start and now state leaders are racing to meet a May 31 legislative deadline to fix some of its biggest problems, like the impending loss of more than $300 million in funding for renewable energy programs.
But the law sputtered from the start and now state leaders are racing to meet a May 31 legislative deadline to fix some of its biggest problems, like the impending loss of more than $300 million in funding for renewable energy programs. The 2025 target is far out of reach, the jobs expectations went unmet and the solar industry is laying off workers as promised funding dries up.
Exelon emerged as a clear winner, receiving $2.3 billion in ratepayer-funded subsidies over a decade for its two plants. It is now demanding even more money and threatening to close two other nuclear plants if it doesn’t get it.
“Exelon continues to get $235 million a year, while the solar support has been stripped away,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center and a critic of the state’s nuclear bailout. “Illinois could’ve been a Midwest solar energy leader.”
Making the current scramble even more complicated is a federal bribery probe of Exelon and its Chicago utility subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison. Prosecutors say ComEd gave cash, jobs and contracts to associates of former House Speaker Michael Madigan with the hope he would shape the legislation to the company’s liking.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker has said that Exelon will not dictate the terms of the current debate over how to fix the state’s energy law. But the company and its close allies in organized labor nonetheless have immense power in the Legislature.
Exelon is seeking subsidies for its four Illinois nuclear plants that didn’t get help in the 2016 law, and is saying that the Byron and Dresden nuclear plants will close without this aid.
Meanwhile, solar companies are laying off workers following the abrupt end of incentive funding tied to the 2016 law.
Supporters of the law talked about a boom in solar jobs, but the actual gains have been modest. Illinois went from 3,480 solar jobs in 2015, the 14th highest number in the country, to 5,259 jobs in 2020, which ranked 13th, according to the Solar Foundation.
While there were few new solar jobs, there has been a surge in the small-scale solar projects the law was designed to encourage, with more than 20,000 projects completed. But solar remains a blip in Illinois’ energy landscape, providing less than 1 percent of the state’s electricity generation in 2020.
Solar and wind energy have grown in Illinois, but renewable sources are only about 7.5 percent of the state’s electricity consumption, which is far short of the pace needed to reach the target of 25 percent by 2025…….
While there were few new solar jobs, there has been a surge in the small-scale solar projects the law was designed to encourage, with more than 20,000 projects completed. But solar remains a blip in Illinois’ energy landscape, providing less than 1 percent of the state’s electricity generation in 2020.
Solar and wind energy have grown in Illinois, but renewable sources are only about 7.5 percent of the state’s electricity consumption, which is far short of the pace needed to reach the target of 25 percent by 2025……..
A Nuclear Bailout Takes Shape
In 2016, Exelon was threatening to close the Clinton and Quad Cities power plants and wanted the Illinois General Assembly to pass a law that would require local utilities, including ComEd, to charge consumers for a 10-year subsidy for the plants.
The idea had the strong backing of Exelon’s allies in organized labor, but it was difficult to get lawmakers to agree to raise utility bills.
At the same time, environmental groups, clean energy business groups and environmental justice advocates had their own proposals.
Madigan, a Democrat who was the longtime speaker of the House, made clear that any clean energy proposals needed to go through Exelon and get added to their nuclear bailout, according to those closely involved with the process. Madigan, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment.
“Being able to pass clean energy legislation was conditioned by the speaker to reach agreement with ComEd and Exelon and labor,” said Jen Walling, executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council, which led the push for renewable energy provisions.
Walling, whose group represents more than 90 environmental and community groups across Illinois, said the political reality forced the environmental advocates to work with Exelon.
Pat Quinn, a Democrat who was governor from 2009 until he lost his bid for re-election in 2014, said the process was unseemly but typical for Exelon.
Exelon wanted “the renewable people to literally crawl to them,” Quinn said. “As long as they could hold up the renewables and the progressive stuff, they’d get more for themselves.”
Federal prosecutors later said that Exelon subsidiary ComEd’s actions at that time were more than just hardball politics. The company was part of a pay-to-play environment for energy legislation in the state, with ComEd giving cash, contracts and jobs to people connected to Madigan, according to a federal complaint. The investigation has led to indictments and a deferred prosecution agreement with ComEd.
ComEd’s Breymaier said the company has “substantially strengthened oversight and controls of its lobbying and hiring,” among other steps to prevent actions like those described by prosecutors………… https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21052021/how-pay-to-play-politics-and-an-uneasy-coalition-of-nuclear-and-renewable-energy-led-to-a-flawed-illinois-law/
We already have 95% of the technologies and know how to slash emissions, remove air pollution and provide energy security and jobs
No, we don’t need ‘miracle technologies’ to slash emissions — we already have 95 percent, The Hill 20th May 2021, Mark Jacobson: We have 95 percent of the technologies we need today and the know-how to get the rest to address both energy and non-energy emissions.
As such, no miracle technology, particularly carbon capture, direct air capture, modern bioenergy or modern nuclear power, is needed. By implementing only clean, renewable WWS energy and storage and implementing non-energy strategies, we will address not only climate, but also the 7 million annual air pollution deaths worldwide and energy insecurity.
None of the “miracle technologies” addresses all three. We and 17 other research groups have shown that we can do it with renewables alone worldwide and in the 50 United States. Such a transition reduces energy costs, and land requirements while creating jobs.
The key is to deploy, deploy, deploy existing clean, renewable, safe technologies as fast as possible.
U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry recently stated, “I am told by scientists that 50 percent of the reductions we have to make to get to net zero are going to come from technologies that we don’t yet have.” This comment echoes recent statements by Bill Gates that solar, wind and batteries are not enough, so we need “miracle technologies” to decarbonize our global economy. They also mimic statements in a 2021 International Energy Agency report that, “in 2050, almost half the reductions come from technologies that are currently at the demonstration or prototype phase.” One might argue that, in all three cases, “new technologies” means improved existing technologies, such as improved
batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, etc.
However, hidden in the recent U.S. economic revitalization proposal is a call to fund CO2 capture and storage, CO2 direct air capture and small modular nuclear reactors. Similarly, Gates has funded and argued for these technologies plus modern bioenergy, and the IEA report explicitly proposes the use of all four technologies for a decarbonized world. Ironically, the IEA acknowledges, “all the technologies needed to achieve the necessary deep cuts in global emissions by 2030 already exist.” But astonishingly, they then say that those technologies and their improvements are not enough to reach 2050 goals.
Tesla’s Bitcoin about-face is a warning for cryptocurrencies that ignore climate change
Don’t be lulled into thinking that Elon Musk is some sort of expeert on environmrent. He plans to continue with Bitcoin, as well as with a multitude of rockets and space satellites – all mpowered by – guess what” plutonium and other forms of nuclear energy
Tesla’s Bitcoin about-face is a warning for cryptocurrencies that ignore climate change, The Conversation, John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra 17 May 21
Over the weekend, Tesla chief executive Elon Musk suggested his company could sell off its Bitcoin holdings, sending the cryptocurrency plummeting.
It followed Musk’s announcement earlier this month that his company would no longer accept Bitcoin in payment for its electric cars, due to the fossil fuels needed to create the digital currency.
Bitcoin is created via high-powered computers solving complex mathematical equations. These computers use a lot of electricity, which is often generated by fossil fuels. Tesla’s about-face is a blow to Bitcoin, the value of which jumped when Tesla got on board.
Tesla’s stance is a big winner for both the climate, and the company’s “green” reputation. The development has also shone the spotlight further onto the carbon footprint of cryptocurrency – an issue that will not go away soon.
how, exactly, is Bitcoin – and many other cryptocurrencies – bad for the environment?
It all comes down to the energy used to create it. Before a Bitcoin transaction takes place, the person spending the coin must be verified as the valid owner. And once the transaction is complete it must be digitally recorded in a database known as a “blockchain” ledger.
Unlike a traditional bank where transactions are centrally verified and recorded, Bitcoin’s ledger comprises a distributed database of users. They verify transactions by running complex mathematical problems through high-powered computers. The first user to solve the calculation and add it to the blockchain is rewarded with Bitcoin. The process is termed “mining”.
Over time, the Bitcoin system increases the complexity of the problems as more computing power is applied to them. In the early days mining could be done by geeks in their bedrooms using home computers. Now it mostly done using vast rooms full of very expensive specialised equipment, which only companies can afford.
The process uses a lot of energy. The University of Cambridge recently estimated Bitcoin used more electricity each year than the entire economies of Argentina or Sweden.
Some of this electricity comes from renewables. But analyses suggest most Bitcoin mining occurs in China, and the main power source is coal. A recent study in Nature concluded Bitcoin operations in China are on track to produce 130 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2024 – more than the entire economy of the Czech Republic………. https://theconversation.com/teslas-bitcoin-about-face-is-a-warning-for-cryptocurrencies-that-ignore-climate-change-160928
Weatherwatch: does nuclear power really keep the lights on?
Weatherwatch: does nuclear power really keep the lights on? With nuclear fading away, Britain must learn how to carefully manage renewable energy https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/may/15/weatherwatch-does-nuclear-power-really-keep-the-lights-on, Paul BrownSat 15 May 2021 1
The nuclear industry is fond of telling us the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow, as if people living in Britain did not already know that. But the point atomic enthusiasts are making is that wind and solar electricity generation is not reliable, while nuclear will keep the lights on.
But things are a bit more complicated than that. This is partly because large-scale batteries, pump storage in reservoirs and other ways of topping up electricity supplies mean that baseload power provided by nuclear reactors is no longer needed. Another reason is that nuclear output is falling while renewables get ever stronger.
Output of electricity over a year is measured in terawatt hours (TWh). In 2020, generation from nuclear was 50.3TWh, down 11% from 2019, partly because of cracks and rust in ageing reactors. Renewable output reached a record high of 120.3TWh.
Significantly, 2020 nuclear generation was 13TWh less than in 1989, when nuclear provided 20% of the nation’s electricity, and wind and solar contributions were hardly measurable.
Even with the massive station Hinkley Point C being built in Somerset, nuclear power is fading away. To keep the lights on we will have to increasingly learn to carefully manage the power produced by our unreliable weather.
Despite Germany’s nuclear phaseout, the secure supply of electricity in Germany will remain guaranteed at the current high level for the foreseeable future.
Renew Economy 16th May 2021 Germany’s target of achieving greenhouse gas neutrality by 2045 has a very important sub-goal: The expansion of renewable energy capacity to provide green power for transport, heating and making hydrogen. But running such an integrated energy system on fluctuating renewables alone will require not just more wind turbines and solar panels, but a power network that ensures the delicate balance of supply and demand at all times, while conventional capacities are shut down. So far, the power supply in Germany remains one of the most reliable in the world. The government and grid operators are confident it will stay this way despite the challenges of electrifying the nation and experts highlight the importance of European power grid integration. But others predict that the country will soon be in need of back-up capacity. Germany’s conventional power generation capacity is beginning to dwindle. In December 2022, the country will have over 23 gigawatts (GW) less nuclear power capacity than ten years ago. In a reply to parliamentarians, it wrote in March 2021: “All analyses of supply security known to the federal government and carried out in accordance with the latest scientific findings come to the conclusion that the secure supply of electricity in Germany will remain guaranteed at the current high level for the foreseeable future. The analyses also take into account the phase-out of nuclear energy and the end of coal-fired power generation. https://reneweconomy.com.au/shutting-down-nuclear-and-coal-can-germany-keep-the-lights-on/ |
Both Germany and Britain are decarbonising while nuclear production is greatly reducing
Nuclear Phase-Out – UK & Germany**
Even-handed analysis of data from Germany and the UK indicates that it is
still easily possible to dramatically reduce carbon emissions whilst
greatly reducing the amount of energy coming from nuclear power.
One thing not usually appreciated in the arguments about the impact of nuclear power
plant retirements in Germany is that in reality much the same process has
occurred, for different reasons, in the UK.
In both Germany and the UK the
falling proportion of electricity coming from nuclear power has gone along
with dramatic reductions in carbon emissions from electricity in both
countries.
Peering through the fog of the current debate one would almost
think that ‘pro-nuclear’ UK was busy cutting its carbon emissions by
increasing nuclear output whilst ‘anti-nuclear’ Germany was busy
increasing them, or at least not reducing them, by its phase-out policy.
Yet nothing of the sort has been happening. Both the cases of Germany and
the UK knock the pro-nuclear arguments on the head that say that increases
in renewable energy cannot reduce carbon emissions without maintaining
nuclear production. Clearly they can!
100% Renewables 16th May 2021
If Bitcoin is virtual, why are there environmental concerns?
Why does Elon Musk say Bitcoin is bad for the environment? ABC, By Jordan Hayne, 14 May 21,
……………If Bitcoin is virtual, why are there environmental concerns?
The issue is that all these computer farms working overtime to mine bitcoin use up a lot of real-world energy.The grunt work of adding to the block chain has computers run guessing games involving an astronomically large number of guesses each second.
To be more precise, the network is currently estimated as being able to handle 176,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that’s 176 quintillion) computations every single second.
All those numbers are energy intensive, so the power consumption of the Bitcoin network is huge.
According to the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finance, the estimated annualised consumption of electricity by the Bitcoin network is 149.6 terawatt hours and growing.
That’s more than countries like Sweden, Pakistan and Malaysia, and about 61 per cent of Australia’s total energy consumption…. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-14/why-is-bitcoin-bad-for-the-environment-elon-musk/100139280
Energy effuciency – the most ignored form of climate action – and the most effective
Times 12th May 2021, Energy efficiency can sometimes be overlooked as a way of tackling climate
change amid the enthusiasm for electric vehicles and renewables. But simply
reducing the amount of energy required to achieve the same ends is a hugely
effective tool in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The least polluting form of energy is, after all, the energy we do not use. Investment in
energy efficiency faltered in the pandemic. As energy prices dropped, so
did the incentive to use less of it. At the same time, businesses
struggling to stay afloat cut spending.
The International Energy Agency
says this trend is especially worrying because energy efficiency is
expected to deliver more than 40 per cent of the required cuts in
energy-related greenhouse gas emissions over the next 20 years. Investment
is likely to pick up again as regulation forces firms to address their
carbon emissions.
While the big wins in terms of cutting carbon will come
from changing how we heat buildings and insulating them better, reducing
energy consumption with more efficient lighting and appliances is an easy
first step.
Bitcoin’s dirty little secret – its danger to the environment and the climate
Bitcoin’s dirty little secret: It’s not easy being green, The Age,
By Nick O’Malley and Chris Zappone, May 8, 2021 Depending on who you ask bitcoin, the digital currency at the heart of the crypto craze is either a currency or a commodity, a speculative bubble or a safe tool for storing and building wealth.
One thing everyone agrees on is that it has become a staggering consumer of energy and producer of climate wrecking carbon dioxide. Debate between its champions and detractors grows with its price and value, intensified by accelerating global efforts to tackle climate change.
Bitcoin supporters must now grapple with the reality that built into the cryptocurrency’s design is a seemingly endless demand for energy in the form of computing power.
……. “One of the biggest risks to the climate today is that people keep demanding more bitcoin,” says Macquarie University associate professor Sean Foley.
To understand why bitcoin requires so much energy, you have to understand how it is verified – in ever-growing banks of computer “mines”.
……… As each computer is in effect competing with the entire pool of computers engaged in proof of work, there is an incentive for miners to keep growing their banks of computers, especially when the value surges.
……. As the money has flowed, the enterprises engaged in mining are growing larger and moving into energy-rich but regulation-light environments like China, Russia and Iran in a race to confirm more calculations and “mine” more bitcoin.
In April 2020, about 65 per cent of all bitcoin mining in the world happened in China, according to figures from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, with a third of it in Xinjiang.
…………..The network of computers mining bitcoin across the world currently emits about 60mn tons of CO2, the same as the nation of Greece
………..Bank of America analysts say the rising complexity of transactions that underpin bitcoin is “the biggest flaw of the entire system” because this demands ever more power to function………. https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/bitcoin-s-dirty-little-secret-it-s-not-easy-being-green-20210506-p57pki.html
France’s nuclear output slumped – they had to import power
French nuclear output slumps to 6-month low in April, Power, SOPHIE TETREL, Paris, 04 May 2021 (Montel)
France’s nuclear power generation slumped to a six-month low at 27.1 TWh in April, making it a net power importer for two weeks when cold weather buoyed demand, national TSO data showed on Tuesday.
Nuclear output last month was just 276 GWh or 1% higher than in April last year when it plunged to a record low during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, and it was 4.6 TWh below the level reached in March this year.
Average power plant availability dropped about 9 percentage points month on month to 37.3 GW or 61% of installed capacity in April, due to maintenance and fail… (subscribers only) https://www.montelnews.com/en/story/french-nuclear-output-slumps-to-6-month-low-in-april/1218663
The huge carbon footprint and massive energy use of online activities and of Bitcoin
This is a most timely article. Why is the world not noticing this? Elon Musk and other billionaire Bitcoin fans are also fans of space travel – another energy-gobbling thing. They are fans of nuclear energy. The thing that nuclear energy fans have in common with space travel fans and Bitcoin fans is their religious fervour for endless growth and endless energy use.
Unfortunately our entire culture, the Western consumer culture, has swept the world with a mindless belief in ever more stuff, ever more digital use, with no awareness of the energy used. So we tink that our billions of trivial tweets are up ”in the cloud”, – not even realising that they are in dirty great steel data buildings that use massive amounts of energy just to keep cool, This ever- expanding energy and resource gobbling is going to kill us, – and Bitcoin is just one glaring, sorry example of this.
Truth or fiction: Is mining bitcoin a ticking time bomb for the climate? Rehabilitating Earth By Jennifer Sizeland 2 May 21
While many of us may consider the carbon footprint of buying a physical item like a jumper or a toaster, it is truly mind boggling to think about the environmental impact of time spent online. This may be why the huge carbon footprints of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are going largely under the radar for many of us, including investors and climate activists.
Yet the real-world cost of bitcoin cannot be underestimated. A University of Cambridge study found that the network burns through 121 terawatt-hours per year, putting it into a category of a top-30 country in terms of electricity usage. In fact, the carbon cost was largely ignored altogether until 2017 when prices surged and the general population started to take more notice. Aside from the significant carbon footprint of bitcoin, it’s important to understand what bitcoin is and why it’s so popular.
Decoding Cryptocurrencies
Bitcoin is created by mining a 64-digit hexadecimal number (known as a ‘hash’) that is less than or equal to the target hash that the miner is looking for. The miner gets paid in crypto tokens for all the currency they make. The act of solving these computational equations on the bitcoin network makes the payment network trustworthy. It proves the worth of the bitcoin and verifies it at the same time so that it can’t be spent twice. Essentially, an online log makes records of the transactions made and once approved, they’re added to a block on the chain, hence the phrase ‘blockchain’.
What makes it all the more confusing is that not only is cryptocurrency fairly new to the general population, but the way it is created is shrouded in secrecy due to its niche status. This makes it much harder for miners to be held accountable for their intensive carbon usage, in a time when every company needs to consider their impact on the planet.
The secrecy is also what excites investors about bitcoin since it isn’t tied to a certain location or institution and it’s completely decentralised – unlike a bank. Investors trust bitcoin as inflation is controlled algorithmically by cutting the reward rate periodically, rendering the rate of new bitcoin supplies as unalterable by design. The issue remains that there is no government or organisation to hold them to account for their carbon footprint. A footprint which is intrinsically tied to its value as the demand for it increases, using more and more energy. With every market jump, the cost to the planet is greater.
The price of one bitcoin is $57,383 at the time of writing, which takes the market cap value above that of Facebook and Tesla. The wider cryptocurrency market that includes dogecoin, ethereum and litecoin has reached an estimated $1.4 trillion and counting.
From a financial perspective, miners want cheap servers to increase their profit margins which is why much of the bitcoin activity is done in China. As the industry is unregulated there is no reason why activity wouldn’t surge in the place where it costs the least to do it. Currently, China does not have a cost-effective renewable energy supply so two thirds of the grid is fuelled by dirty coal power stations.
Another problematic caveat to the bitcoin story is the amount of so-called green companies and investors that are buying into it. Some of them are not disclosing this element of their portfolio due to the immense carbon footprint but those that are publicly traded have no choice. Perhaps one of the most high-profile companies to reap the rewards from bitcoin is Elon Musk’s Tesla, who have made $1 billion in 10 weeks from their investment. It remains to be seen whether these businesses are doing their due diligence regarding the origins of their bitcoin and if it is mined from a sustainable source. While this may give Tesla more money to invest in green infrastructure, it’s hard to say whether this is the more ethical way to do so……….
One important lesson we can take from this is that it demonstrates how the digital world has a very real impact on planet Earth. Whether we’re buying cryptocurrency or simply scrolling the internet, we are impacting the planet in one way or another. https://rehabilitatingearth.com/2021/05/02/truth-or-fiction-is-mining-bitcoin-a-ticking-time-bomb-for-the-climate/
French nuclear giant EDF unveils first wind and battery project in Australia — RenewEconomy
French nuclear giant EDF buys 280MW wind project in central Queensland, the first of a major pipeline of wind, solar and storage projects in Australia. The post French nuclear giant EDF unveils first wind and battery project in Australia appeared first on RenewEconomy.
French nuclear giant EDF unveils first wind and battery project in Australia — RenewEconomy
For climate action, renewables clearly beat nuclear power
| Heinrich Boll 26th April 2021, Mark Jacobson: New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks. https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change |
1 This Month
19 February – VIRTUAL EVENT-Decision Time: AI and Our Nuclear Arsenal
12:45 p.m. Central / 1:45 p.m. Eastern
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- February 2026 (141)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 