Life Cycle Assessment of Bitcoin Mining.

This study estimates the environmental impact of mining Bitcoin, the most well-known blockchain-based cryptocurrency, and contributes to the discussion on the technology's supposedly large energy consumption and carbon footprint. The lack of a robust methodological framework and of accurate data on key factors determining Bitcoin's impact have so far been the main obstacles in such an assessment. This study applied the well-established Life Cycle Assessment methodology to an in-depth analysis of drivers of past and future environmental impacts of the Bitcoin mining network. It was found that, in 2018, the Bitcoin network consumed 31.29 TWh with a carbon footprint of 17.29 MtCO2-eq, an estimate that is in the lower end of the range of results from previous studies. The main drivers of such impact were found to be the geographical distribution of miners and the efficiency of the mining equipment. In contrast to previous studies, it was found that the service life, production, and end-of-life of such equipment had only a minor contribution to the total impact, and that while the overall hashrate is expected to increase, the energy consumption and environmental footprint per TH mined is expected to decrease.

[1]  Michel Rauchs,et al.  2nd Global Cryptoasset Benchmarking Study , 2018 .

[2]  Björn A. Sandén,et al.  Environmental Assessment of Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Prospective LCA , 2018, Journal of Industrial Ecology.

[3]  Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.  Quantified Uncertainties in Comparative Life Cycle Assessment: What Can Be Concluded? , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  Massimo Pizzol,et al.  Life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: The case of milk ultra-high pressure homogenisation , 2017 .

[5]  Nir Kshetri,et al.  1 Blockchain's roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives , 2018, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[6]  Roberto Dones,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies: Case Studies for Photovoltaic and Wind Power (11 pp) , 2005 .

[7]  Christopher L. Mutel,et al.  Brightway: An open source framework for Life Cycle Assessment , 2017, J. Open Source Softw..

[8]  Maria-Lluïsa Marsal-Llacuna Future living framework: Is blockchain the next enabling network? , 2017 .

[9]  Glenn Parry,et al.  The future of money and further applications of the blockchain , 2017 .

[10]  M. Atzori Blockchain Technology and Decentralized Governance: Is the State Still Necessary? , 2017 .

[11]  Massimo Pizzol,et al.  Attributional or consequential Life Cycle Assessment: A matter of social responsibility , 2018 .

[12]  A.W.G. de Vries Bitcoin's Growing Energy Problem , 2018 .

[13]  Gregor Wernet,et al.  The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  Christopher L Mutel,et al.  Uncertain Environmental Footprint of Current and Future Battery Electric Vehicles. , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  Alexis Laurent,et al.  Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  Harald Vranken,et al.  Sustainability of bitcoin and blockchains , 2017 .

[17]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[18]  David Pennington,et al.  Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[19]  Alexander Ivanovitch Savelyev,et al.  Copyright in the Blockchain Era: Promises and Challenges , 2017, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[20]  Hubert Ritzdorf,et al.  On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains , 2016, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[21]  Peter Tzscheutschler,et al.  Is Bitcoin the Only Problem? A Scenario Model for the Power Demand of Blockchains , 2019, Front. Energy Res..

[22]  Rob N J Comans,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of the nonideal competitive adsorption-donnan model: effects of dissolved organic matter variability on predicted metal speciation in soil solution. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  Jeroen Guinée,et al.  Does ex ante application enhance the usefulness of LCA? A case study on an emerging technology for metal recovery from e-waste , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[24]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Wind Power Electricity: The Bigger the Turbine, The Greener the Electricity? , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[25]  J. Truby Decarbonizing Bitcoin: Law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of Blockchain technologies and digital currencies , 2018, Energy Research & Social Science.

[26]  C. Mora,et al.  Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[27]  Christian Stoll,et al.  The Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin , 2019, Joule.