Cargando…

Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant

PURPOSE: Due to its highly energy-intensive process, Bitcoin has attracted the global attention of climate research and media. At the time of this submission, behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining has gained significant traction; however, not a single environmental impact assessment has been conducted on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roeck, Martin, Drennen, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8885116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35250183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02025-0
_version_ 1784660331804491776
author Roeck, Martin
Drennen, Thomas
author_facet Roeck, Martin
Drennen, Thomas
author_sort Roeck, Martin
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Due to its highly energy-intensive process, Bitcoin has attracted the global attention of climate research and media. At the time of this submission, behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining has gained significant traction; however, not a single environmental impact assessment has been conducted on this type of operation. This study seeks to fill the gap, applying the established Life Cycle Assessment methodology to estimate the environmental footprint of a single case study. METHODS: A life cycle assessment methodology of a natural gas power plant mining Bitcoin behind-the-meter in the state of New York following the ISO 14040 guidelines was applied. The functional unit (FU) is defined as the attributed generation capacity of 14 MW over the course of a regular full-calendar year in the attributional model. The FU is scaled to 22 MW and 104 MW in the predictive models to represent planned expansion. The TRACI 2.1 method was applied to characterize the environmental impact. The environmental impact categories considered in this study included global warming, acidification, smog formation, and particulate emissions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Located in New York State, Greenidge LLC, a natural gas power plant produces an estimated 88,440 metric tons of CO(2)-eq per year to mine Bitcoin behind-the-meter. Annual emissions would total 656,983 metric tons of CO(2)-eq if the plant devotes 100% of its generation to Bitcoin mining. The primary driver of greenhouse gas emissions is the generation of electricity itself, accounting for ~ 79% of the total emissions. At full capacity, annual emissions are comparable to the annual emissions of 140,000 passenger vehicles or the emissions resulting from the burning of 600 million lb of coal. Further, additional planned cases could produce an estimated 1.9 million tons tCO(2)-eq per annum. CONCLUSIONS: Behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining makes the power plant a significant contributor to global warming at a time when New York State is attempting to radically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 and to have 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040. The environmental impact of this business model is not limited to individual sites but is spread out over upstream impacts as well. In combination, we see that behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining not only goes against local climate initiatives but also poses a significant danger to national initiatives due to feasible scalability, caused by an availability of existing infrastructure and favorable financials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11367-022-02025-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8885116
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88851162022-03-01 Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant Roeck, Martin Drennen, Thomas Int J Life Cycle Assess Carbon Footprinting PURPOSE: Due to its highly energy-intensive process, Bitcoin has attracted the global attention of climate research and media. At the time of this submission, behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining has gained significant traction; however, not a single environmental impact assessment has been conducted on this type of operation. This study seeks to fill the gap, applying the established Life Cycle Assessment methodology to estimate the environmental footprint of a single case study. METHODS: A life cycle assessment methodology of a natural gas power plant mining Bitcoin behind-the-meter in the state of New York following the ISO 14040 guidelines was applied. The functional unit (FU) is defined as the attributed generation capacity of 14 MW over the course of a regular full-calendar year in the attributional model. The FU is scaled to 22 MW and 104 MW in the predictive models to represent planned expansion. The TRACI 2.1 method was applied to characterize the environmental impact. The environmental impact categories considered in this study included global warming, acidification, smog formation, and particulate emissions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Located in New York State, Greenidge LLC, a natural gas power plant produces an estimated 88,440 metric tons of CO(2)-eq per year to mine Bitcoin behind-the-meter. Annual emissions would total 656,983 metric tons of CO(2)-eq if the plant devotes 100% of its generation to Bitcoin mining. The primary driver of greenhouse gas emissions is the generation of electricity itself, accounting for ~ 79% of the total emissions. At full capacity, annual emissions are comparable to the annual emissions of 140,000 passenger vehicles or the emissions resulting from the burning of 600 million lb of coal. Further, additional planned cases could produce an estimated 1.9 million tons tCO(2)-eq per annum. CONCLUSIONS: Behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining makes the power plant a significant contributor to global warming at a time when New York State is attempting to radically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 and to have 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040. The environmental impact of this business model is not limited to individual sites but is spread out over upstream impacts as well. In combination, we see that behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining not only goes against local climate initiatives but also poses a significant danger to national initiatives due to feasible scalability, caused by an availability of existing infrastructure and favorable financials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11367-022-02025-0. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-02-28 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8885116/ /pubmed/35250183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02025-0 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Carbon Footprinting
Roeck, Martin
Drennen, Thomas
Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant
title Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant
title_full Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant
title_fullStr Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant
title_full_unstemmed Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant
title_short Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant
title_sort life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter bitcoin mining at us power plant
topic Carbon Footprinting
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8885116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35250183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02025-0
work_keys_str_mv AT roeckmartin lifecycleassessmentofbehindthemeterbitcoinminingatuspowerplant
AT drennenthomas lifecycleassessmentofbehindthemeterbitcoinminingatuspowerplant