[ad_1]
The drama of the Tesla-Bitcoin relationship has unfolded over the past few months.
Like a bad celebrity relationship (or a good one, depending on how you look at it), the initial meeting of the two tech “disruptors” sparked instant controversy. Tesla began accepting Bitcoin as a purchase method for its cars in February 2021, after the company announced that it had purchased $ 1.5 billion (US) worth of cryptocurrency.
A few months later, on May 12, Tesla decided to stop accepting Bitcoin, with founder Elon Musk citing what many critics of the relationship had highlighted – Bitcoin’s dependence on fossil fuels and its impact on climate change. .
“We are concerned about the rapid increase in the use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions, particularly coal, which has the worst emissions of all fuels,” Musk posted on Twitter.
There are rumors on the internet that Musk and Tesla could reverse their decision in the near future. Musk himself praised the concept of cryptocurrency and said Tesla “intends to use (the cryptocurrency) for transactions as soon as mining shifts to more sustainable energy.” .
It would be a bad decision. Not just for the image of electric vehicles, but perhaps for the entire planet.
The data is (finally) on the side of electric vehicles
You’ve probably heard at least one criticism of Tesla or even the concept of lithium battery-powered electric vehicles as a whole.
Aside from consumer concerns such as range, charge, and cost of operation, many EV reviewers often boast that EVs are no more environmentally friendly than the average fossil fuel-powered vehicle. – and in some cases could even consume more fuel than during their lifetime than traditional vehicles.
Most of the criticism is based on two points. The first is the sourcing and refinement of lithium for batteries, which is a carbon intensive process in itself, and the second is the source of electricity to charge the vehicles themselves – if you have to burn coal. to generate electricity to power your car, it’s not exactly “green”.
These are arguments we have all heard for at least the last decade. But while they had questionable merit in 2010, they have very little merit now.
As electric vehicle manufacturing has grown, battery production has become localized, and electric vehicles are primarily charged through renewable sources such as hydropower and nuclear, data collected over the years. The past three years have been extremely positive for electric vehicles and their carbon footprint compared to traditional vehicles.
In 2020, studies from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen (that’s in the Netherlands) and Cambridge (in the UK) showed that in 95% of the world, driving an electric car is better for the climate than ‘a car powered by fossil fuels.
For example, if you bought a new Nissan Leaf EV in the UK in 2019, it would have lifetime emissions (that’s the car’s make, plus 150,000 km driven) about three times lower than the car average. new to gasoline.
This has been true in other countries that have seen the adoption of EVs on a large scale, such as Norway and France, where almost all electricity comes from carbon-neutral sources, such as hydropower or nuclear.
It’s true that around 50% of an EV’s carbon footprint is due to the manufacturing process alone. However, the carbon intensity of battery manufacturing has declined as battery manufacturing becomes more localized and factories themselves become dependent on renewable sources, such as Tesla’s “Gigafactory”.
Independent studies, such as that carried out by Carbon Brief, now conclude that the average electric vehicle produces between 100 and 150 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilometer (assuming 150,000 kilometers driven over the lifetime of the vehicle) while that the average European fossil-fueled car is somewhere. approximately 250 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilometer.
All this to say now that electric vehicles are really starting to fulfill their mission of reducing carbon emissions, allowing payment through a currency dependent on fossil fuels would be a huge step backwards.
Bitcoin sucks for the environment and that probably won’t change
Now, I’m very aware that half of the readers of this article will already be furiously typing a comment about how stupid, fake, and brainwashed I am when it comes to EVs.
To which I replied: “Grandpa, who left you on the computer again?”
Loading…
Loading … Loading … Loading … Loading … Loading …
Whether you still hold on to an outdated and unsupported opinion because change is scary, or have fully embraced Big Daddy Musk’s plan to save us all with the spice of Mars, the point is, Bitcoin is bad for it. The environment and its use should be limited – especially by anyone who claims to at least have a mind towards reducing carbon emissions.
In 2019, a study by the scientific journal Joule found that the production of Bitcoin would generate between 22 and 22.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, which falls somewhere between the levels produced by the all the countries of Jordan and Sri Lanka.
By 2020, that number had grown to 36.95 megatonnes of CO2 per year, a carbon footprint comparable to that of New Zealand and energy consumption comparable to that of the Netherlands.
Cambridge researchers now estimate that Bitcoin now accounts for around 0.5% of total global electricity consumption.
It’s no exaggeration to say that if Bitcoin continues to grow at this exponential rate, it could be one of the most environmentally damaging things humans have ever invented.
Efforts are being made to make cryptocurrency “greener” – presumably (and hopefully) what Elon Musk is waiting for before accepting it again as a form of payment for Tesla.
Projects from Canada to Siberia have proposed that Bitcoin become dependent on renewable sources such as hydropower, and some sustainability experts have suggested that companies could buy “carbon credits” as a way to offset the carbon impact of crypto. -change.
However, the problem really lies in the design of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is created when powerful computers compete with each other to solve complex mathematical puzzles. It’s a very energy-intensive process – and one that more often than not relies on fossil fuels, especially coal, which Elon Musk correctly pointed out, is the dirtiest source of energy of all.
Higher demand leads to higher Bitcoin prices, which leads to higher demand, which leads to higher prices …
This is leading more and more Bitcoin miners to use increasingly powerful computers to compete with each other, which in turn need more and more power.
By nature, as it becomes more popular, it has to consume more power, making the possibility of “sustainable crypto” with mass adoption unlikely, at least in the immediate future.
Could things change? Of course. Human beings are intelligent problem solvers and we always come up with ways to improve existing concepts. The very existence of electric vehicles and cryptocurrency is proof of this.
But in 2021, you would be a big enough hypocrite to buy your electric car with funny money on the internet.
[ad_2]
picture credit