Could Bitcoin emissions push global warming above 2 °C?

Dittmar, Lars; Praktiknjo, Aaron

doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0534-5

Cited by 59 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, more recent developments, such as the emergence of blockchain technologies and their implications for Industry 4.0, could be analyzed (cf. [41][42][43]). Consequently, one could determine whether the displayed phenomenon only applies to Industry 4.0 or not, and potentially find an already superior term on an international level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generating Transparency in the Worldwide Use of the Terminology Industry 4.0

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, the concept of Industry 4.0 was introduced and later adopted by the German government, paving the way for a new industrial revolution in Germany. The high significance of this topic is reflected by the large number of corresponding publications. Additionally, the regional focus of research is widespread on a global level and often differs even at a national level. This paper generates transparency regarding the adoption of the concept of Industry 4.0 by analyzing the locations of main contributors within the research field on an international, European, and German-national level. Further, it examines the regionally different foci concerning the concept of Industry 4.0. Having identified four main aspects linked to Industry 4.0 within a pre-study, a quantitative literature research was conducted based on over 800 published papers. The results were further visualized with QGIS. Looking at the results, it can be concluded that the German research community is virtually the only user of the term Industry 4.0, while other institutions seem to link their research to other related concepts. On a German level, the majority of the analyzed studies originate from Southern and Western Germany. North Rhine-Westphalia and the Aachen/Jülich region, in particular, represent main contributors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generating Transparency in the Worldwide Use of the Terminology Industry 4.0

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this research, we did not distinguish the proof-of-work based crypto-currencies from the other algorithms based ones -this could be a limitation of our study -but still acceptable since the vast majority of the crypto-currencies are now traded through the energy consuming Proof-of-Work consensus (Goodkind et al 2020), we simply use the data related to the trading of all crypto-currencies in our analysis. Another methodological aspect can be mentioned here: in line with the existing literature, we associated here the electricity consumption with the trading volume of cryptocurrencies -it is worth mentioning that some studies (Dittmar and Praktiknjo 2019;Masanet et al, 2019) claim that the Bitcoin's electricity consumption should be analyzed in relation with the hashrate (i.e. the network computational power).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Crypto-Currencies Trading and Energy Consumption

Schınckus

Nguyen²,

Ling³

2020

IJEEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study empirically investigates the effects of crypto-currencies trading on the energy consumption as an important consequence of blockchain technology on climate change. In this article, we use the data of Bitcoin trading volume as well as all crypto-currencies trading volumes for the period going from 2014M1 to 2017M12 to investigate the effects on the primary energy consumption. Our empirical results show a positive correlation between crypto-currencies trading volumes and the energy consumption. Moreover, the crypto-currencies trading volume has a granger-causality to energy consumption in the period of study indicating that these two variables have a long-run co-integration. In other words, our findings show a significant positive (and increasing) influence of cryptocurrency activities on the energy consumption in both short-run and long-run. This study investigates one step further in examining the effects of residuals of the crypto-currencies trading volume on the residuals in energy consumption to confirm that a higher trading volume in cryptocurrencies might cause a higher energy consumption. Our findings show a negative influence of the trading of crypto-currencies -precisely, the higher the crypto-currency activities are, the higher the energy consumption is, affecting therefore the environment.

show abstract

“…Für andere PoWbasierte Kryptowährungen erhält man zwar deutlich niedrigere Werte je Transaktion, dennoch ist dies noch immer um Größenordnungen energieintensiver als beispielsweise eine herkömmliche Buchung im Bankensystem. Es ist jedoch essenziell, zu verstehen, dass die Anzahl an abgewickelten Transaktionen keine Auswirkung auf den durch das Mining bedingten Stromverbrauch des Gesamtnetzwerks hat, da in der Theorie die Blöcke beliebig vergrößert werden könnten [24]. Somit ist die Metrik "Energie pro Transaktion" für PoW-basierte Kryptowährungen durchaus ambivalent zu betrachten.…”

Section: Grundlagen Von Bitcoin Und Blockchain-technologieunclassified

Ein Blick auf aktuelle Entwicklungen bei Blockchains und deren Auswirkungen auf den Energieverbrauch

Sedlmeir

Buhl

Fridgen

et al. 2020

Informatik Spektrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Der enorme Stromverbrauch von Bitcoin hat dazu geführt, dass in Wissenschaft und Praxis oft eher undifferenziert Diskussionen über die Nachhaltigkeit von Blockchain- bzw. Distributed-Ledger-Technologie allgemein geführt werden. Allerdings ist die Blockchain-Technologie bereits heute alles andere als homogen – nicht nur hinsichtlich ihrer Anwendungen, die mittlerweile weit über Kryptowährungen hinaus in Wirtschaft und öffentlichen Sektor reichen, sondern auch bezüglich ihrer technischen Charakteristika und insbesondere ihres Stromverbrauchs. Dieser Beitrag fasst den Status quo des Stromverbrauchs verschiedener Implementierungen von Blockchain-Technologie zusammen und geht dabei besonders auf das kürzlich erfolgte Bitcoin Halving sowie sogenannte ZK-Rollups ein. Wir argumentieren, dass Bitcoin und andere Proof-of-Work-Blockchains zwar in der Tat sehr viel Strom verbrauchen, aber bereits heute alternative Blockchain-Lösungen mit deutlich geringerem Stromverbrauch verfügbar sind und weitere vielversprechende Konzepte erprobt werden, die gerade den Stromverbrauch von großen Blockchain-Netzwerken in naher Zukunft noch einmal deutlich senken könnten. Daraus schließen wir, dass die Kritik am Stromverbrauch von Bitcoin zwar legitim ist, jedoch daraus nicht eine Energieproblematik von Blockchain-Technologie generell abgeleitet werden darf. In vielen Fällen, in denen mithilfe von energieeffizienteren Blockchain-Varianten Prozesse digitalisiert oder verbessert werden können, darf sogar per Saldo durchaus mit Energieeinsparungen gerechnet werden.

show abstract

Could Bitcoin emissions push global warming above 2 °C?

Cited by 59 publications

References 5 publications

Generating Transparency in the Worldwide Use of the Terminology Industry 4.0

Generating Transparency in the Worldwide Use of the Terminology Industry 4.0

Crypto-Currencies Trading and Energy Consumption

Ein Blick auf aktuelle Entwicklungen bei Blockchains und deren Auswirkungen auf den Energieverbrauch

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About