Swedish Regulators Call for a Ban on Cryptocurrency Mining

[Lightwreather]

Summary

China is no longer alone in thinking cryptocurrency mining should be banned: Sweden's Financial Supervisory Authority and Environmental Protection Agency recently called for mining to be banned due to its environmental impact.

 

Quotes

Quote

The regulators didn't mince words in a statement published on November 5 titled "Crypto-assets are a threat to the climate transition – energy-intensive mining should be banned."

In it, the Financial Supervisory Authority and Environmental Protection Agency criticized miners' plans to use renewable energy:

Quote

The most common method for producing crypto-assets requires enormous amounts of electricity and generates large CO2 emissions. Crypto-asset producers are keen to use more renewable energy, and they are increasing their presence in the Nordic region. Sweden needs the renewable energy targeted by crypto-asset producers for the climate transition of our essential services, and increased use by miners threatens our ability to meet the Paris Agreement. Energy-intensive mining of crypto-assets should therefore be prohibited.

 

My thoughts

Welp, I don't even know what to say. Literally, because anyhting I say rn will probably attract some pitchforks. But their [FI's] concern's aren't unfounded, Proof-of-work based Cryptocurrencies (which are amoung the more popular ones) are responsible for a large amount of Energy usage. FI also claims that even if they use Renewables, they would take away from other industries' resources. I'm not going to comment on that line.  imo, the underlying tech (blockchain), is indeed the future of banking, but not in it's current state (Government's could adopt it as a technological foundation for their currencies). But we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Sources

Tom's hardware
FI

[Sauron]

I don't think the environmental impact is the main reason we should regulate or outright outlaw cryptocurrency mining, but it is one reason and I'll take it.

[Rauten]

Interesting.

China is kind of its own bubble, and whatever it does doesn't necessarily get copied by others. But if Ikea Sweden is following their approach... could this be the beginning of a domino effect?

Is there really that much crypto mining going on in Sweden, anyway? Any crypto expert that knows this stuff and could chime in?

[MultiGamerClub]

"OH NO"

 

Anyways...

[Brooksie359]

I am not too sure but it sounds like they are targeting mining farms and not your average Joe that is mining on their gpu on their down time. Honestly that's probably not a bad thing as I personally don't care about people going and mining on their personally rig but once you are creating a mining farm and wasting so much power that it is effecting the power grid then it becomes a real problem. Now I know people will always argue the idea that other large companies and manufacturing facilities and whatnot also use a huge amount of energy but honestly I am not going to argue with that as if people think that mining farms are just as valuable as companies and manufacturers then we fundamentally disagree. 

[IPD]

The lack of power grid in the USA capable of sustaining the EV push that environmentalists want should have been enough of a red flag already.  Crypto doesn't help that in the slightest.

 

Can't remember where I remember reading it, but someone did the math and calculated that we'd have to build a 3.5MW nuclear plant every 2 weeks to be able to meet the demand for going "all-electric" by 2050 (or something to that effect).

 

*edit* This is one link.  The one I recall was calculating the mileage per KWH to drive, and the total miles driven--based off current traffic.  If you crunch those numbers, the amount of power grid increase is ungodly high.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/?sh=a8bc08235f7e

 

In any event, adding demand on the power grid while still not having mastered the basics of "renewable energy without rare earth minerals"--seems disingenuous at best.  We can't even get Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear-waste-facility approved; which is desperately needed to prevent environment catastrophe from happening.

 

Have we kicked the can down the road long enough on this?

[IPD]

15 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I am not too sure but it sounds like they are targeting mining farms and not your average Joe that is mining on their gpu on their down time. Honestly that's probably not a bad thing as I personally don't care about people going and mining on their personally rig but once you are creating a mining farm and wasting so much power that it is effecting the power grid then it becomes a real problem. Now I know people will always argue the idea that other large companies and manufacturing facilities and whatnot also use a huge amount of energy but honestly I am not going to argue with that as if people think that mining farms are just as valuable as companies and manufacturers then we fundamentally disagree. 

There's no good way to address this.

 

-Sliding scale that increases in cost per KWH as use goes up?  That only causes factories/industry to pass along a higher cost of goods to the consumer.

 

-Higher cost for GPUs?  That only hurts the little-guy, not the people who farm with dozens of them.

 

 

---

 

Alternatively, you can just ban crypto altogether.  That cuts down on the electrical demand, reduces the overinflated demand for GPUs, and prevents one of the biggest gripes about crypto--that early adopters get greater rewards (aka. it's a glorified pyramid scheme).  And in the case of China, cuts down on an alternate revenue source and "pushes" people back into traditional labor market.

[Tan3l6]

Who actually wins with rising price of crypto-coins?  Speculators? 

[Spindel]

Niether Financial Supervisory Authority or Environmental Protection Agency has made any official statement in this matter.

 

What has happened the general director of FSA and an employee at EPA made a debate article in a swedish newspaper arguing for EU to ban them, but they argue as themselves and not as the official stance of the two agencies. The debate article was published 5 of november. While FI (FSA) has published the article on their website it still remains that this is an opinion piece of two people (given one of them is very influential person).

 

This is a prime example of click bait head line and of course people from other countries not being able to understand the finer details between some individuals opinions and official stances of agencies.

 

 

Meanwhile i e the municipality of Staffanstorp announced on 18 of november that the municipality is investigating if it can invest in crypto currency, so the discussion is far from setteled here.

[Lightwreather]

4 minutes ago, Spindel said:

Niether Financial Supervisory Authority or Environmental Protection Agency has made any official statement in this matter.

 

What has happened the general director of FSA and an employee at EPA made a debate article in a swedish newspaper arguing for EU to ban them, but they argue as themselves and not as the official stance of the two agencies. The debate article was published 5 of november. While FI (FSA) has published the article on their website it still remains that this is an opinion piece of two people (given one of them is very influential person).

 

This is a prime example of click bait head line and of course people from other countries not being able to understand the finer details between some individuals opinions and official stances of agencies.

 

 

Meanwhile i e the municipality of Staffanstorp announced on 18 of november that the municipality is investigating if it can invest in crypto currency, so the discussion is far from setteled here.

Huh, thanks.

That is informative

[Giganthrax]

Good. Hopefully, more countries will follow suit.

[MultiGamerClub]

If electric prices wasnt going up in norway i would probably just mine bitcoin on my 3080 ti, wouldnt mind the heating from a 400w gpu.

[poochyena]

Commercial farming should be banned, but I don't see the issue of small scale crypto farming.

[BuckGup]

INB4 uneducated comments about power usage when 73% of mining operations use 100% renewable energy and the entire blockchain uses 1/3 the power of the ACH, and 1/2 the power of physical gold mining, but hey them bootcoins are stealing all my energy I could have wasted on my gaming PC and microwave

[BuckGup]

13 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Commercial farming should be banned, but I don't see the issue of small scale crypto farming.

Why specifically should they be banned in your opinion?

[IPD]

1 minute ago, BuckGup said:

INB4 uneducated comments about power usage when 73% of mining operations use 100% renewable energy and the entire blockchain uses 1/3 the power of the ACH, and 1/2 the power of physical gold mining, but hey them bootcoins are stealing all my energy I could have wasted on my gaming PC and microwave

Bollocks.  Crypto miners don't self-identify by having scores of solar panels outside their homes.  They're using the same grid power that the rest of us use. 

[Jeppes]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

The lack of power grid in the USA capable of sustaining the EV push that environmentalists want should have been enough of a red flag already.  Crypto doesn't help that in the slightest.

 

Can't remember where I remember reading it, but someone did the math and calculated that we'd have to build a 3.5MW nuclear plant every 2 weeks to be able to meet the demand for going "all-electric" by 2050 (or something to that effect).

 

*edit* This is one link.  The one I recall was calculating the mileage per KWH to drive, and the total miles driven--based off current traffic.  If you crunch those numbers, the amount of power grid increase is ungodly high.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/?sh=a8bc08235f7e

 

In any event, adding demand on the power grid while still not having mastered the basics of "renewable energy without rare earth minerals"--seems disingenuous at best.  We can't even get Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear-waste-facility approved; which is desperately needed to prevent environment catastrophe from happening.

 

Have we kicked the can down the road long enough on this?

One could ask why you have built like a banana republic for so long? No insulation standards, no triple glazing, its like 1950:s era stuff where your ac or heating costs are tripled. Crypto mining is pretty much a fart in a hurricane in comparison.

[poochyena]

41 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Why specifically should they be banned in your opinion?

Harmful for the environment (power use and ewaste), harmful to the electronics market (creates a supply gap that makes it harder for consumer to buy things), does not produce any real value (only mined to make profit, not to use as a currency).

[HenrySalayne]

4 hours ago, IPD said:

Can't remember where I remember reading it, but someone did the math and calculated that we'd have to build a 3.5MW nuclear plant every 2 weeks to be able to meet the demand for going "all-electric" by 2050 (or something to that effect).

Wow! 3.5 MW. That's like - a really small wind turbine. Every two weeks. How could we ever do that?

 

I guess you were probably talking about 3.5 GW and not a particular country but the entire world? And especially when talking about nuclear power plants in general they have roundabout 1 GW of electrical power and roughly 3.5 GW of thermal power output. So I'm not quite sure what this number is supposed to say because it could be either way.

 

1 hour ago, BuckGup said:

uneducated comments about power usage when 73% of mining operations use 100% renewable energy and the entire blockchain uses 1/3 the power of the ACH, and 1/2 the power of physical gold mining, but hey them bootcoins are stealing all my energy

And generally speaking, it would be quite nice if you could all add some sources and not throw some arbitrary or made-up numbers around. Especially if you start your sentence with "uneducated comments" (or if this is just some wild form of irony you should add a emoticon to make it clear).

 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, BuckGup said:

INB4 uneducated comments about power usage when 73% of mining operations use 100% renewable energy and the entire blockchain uses 1/3 the power of the ACH, and 1/2 the power of physical gold mining, but hey them bootcoins are stealing all my energy I could have wasted on my gaming PC and microwave

Renewable energy is not really infinite in supply so it would make sense that they want to limit power consumption so that when we transition to renewable energy the energy requirements won't be unfeasible. Granted that could probably not be an issue if people weren't so against nuclear power but with the way they are going it seems like they are going to try and replace everything with stuff like solar and wind. Also the whole power consumption thing compared to traditional financial transactions isn't really a fair comparison as most people would agree that traditional transactions systems that banks use is way more necessary than bitcoin. You could get rid of bitcoin tomorrow and it wouldn't be a huge issue unless you work for a company related to cryptocurrency someone who owns coins. Compare that to the traditional banking systems. If they were gone tomorrow we would have huge issues and society would basically collapse. 

[IdidAthing]

28 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Renewable energy is not really infinite in supply so it would make sense that they want to limit power consumption so that when we transition to renewable energy the energy requirements won't be unfeasible. Granted that could probably not be an issue if people weren't so against nuclear power but with the way they are going it seems like they are going to try and replace everything with stuff like solar and wind. Also the whole power consumption thing compared to traditional financial transactions isn't really a fair comparison as most people would agree that traditional transactions systems that banks use is way more necessary than bitcoin. You could get rid of bitcoin tomorrow and it wouldn't be a huge issue unless you work for a company related to cryptocurrency someone who owns coins. Compare that to the traditional banking systems. If they were gone tomorrow we would have huge issues and society would basically collapse. 

I live near a nuclear plant and for some reason the government pressured them and stopped giving them tax cuts, forcing them to shut down. Now the windmills are going up and I'm ready to expect rolling blackouts.

[IdidAthing]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

Harmful for the environment (power use and ewaste), harmful to the electronics market (creates a supply gap that makes it harder for consumer to buy things), does not produce any real value (only mined to make profit, not to use as a currency).

I would agree with you on that, especially it ruining the consumer electronics space. I was watching some old LTT videos from 2018 and Linus mentioned that there was a graphics card shortage because of crypto mining! I forgot it had been going on this long, and it's only getting worse.

[IPD]

4 hours ago, Jeppes said:

One could ask why you have built like a banana republic for so long? No insulation standards, no triple glazing, its like 1950:s era stuff where your ac or heating costs are tripled. Crypto mining is pretty much a fart in a hurricane in comparison.

Easy to make a place look like Dubai or Shenzen when the buildings are all new.  USA traditionally ends up with some of the most archaic infrastructure because ours tends to among the oldest.

 

Not an excuse, but I'm not going to get political with it.

[IPD]

4 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Wow! 3.5 MW. That's like - a really small wind turbine. Every two weeks. How could we ever do that?

 

I guess you were probably talking about 3.5 GW and not a particular country but the entire world? And especially when talking about nuclear power plants in general they have roundabout 1 GW of electrical power and roughly 3.5 GW of thermal power output. So I'm not quite sure what this number is supposed to say because it could be either way.

 

And generally speaking, it would be quite nice if you could all add some sources and not throw some arbitrary or made-up numbers around. Especially if you start your sentence with "uneducated comments" (or if this is just some wild form of irony you should add a emoticon to make it clear).

 

Ok, numbers.  Just pulled freshly from google.

 

There's 229 million licensed drivers in the USA.  EV makes up 2.6% of the market.  So assuming 1:1 (it's actually more like 1.8:1, but that would make the EV numbers even worse)--that is 223 million drivers not driving EV's .  The average driver in the USA drives just over ~13,000 miles per year.  Combined, that means those 223 million are driving 2.899 trillion miles per year (again, not counting EV's).

 

EV's take ~30kWh to go 100 miles.  So that's 869.7 billion kWh.  As of 2020, the USA had a total power generation of ~4050.7 billion kWh.   Thus we'd have to raise total power generation (again, generation, not capacity) by ~21% in order to meet the demand of just migrating all vehicles to EV's.  That means nothing about removing coal and natural gas plants--as existing infrastructure would be needed at existing levels....in addition to the new generation required.

 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

 

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce

 

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy

 

The USA has 55 nuclear plants.  Total generation for 2020 nuclear was listed as 790 billion kWh.  That brings annual generation per plant to ~14.4 billion kWh.  So that means it would take over 60 additional nuclear power plants (based on current generation per plant on average) to meet the additional demand placed on the power grid from EV migration.  Meaning that we'll need to more than double the nuclear plants in the USA to do so--unless we have a cleaner way to miraculously generate 7/8ths of a trillion kWh in demand.  And keep in mind that natural gas generates more electricity than either by a considerable margin--which is also a fossil fuel and would need to be eliminated to prevent greenhouse gasses.

 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47196

 

All I'm saying is that crypto mining doesn't help--and is in many ways more immediate of a threat and far worse.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-mining-electricity-usage-more-than-google-2021-9

 

91 terrawatt hours (so 91 billion kWh) worldwide.  The USA is listed as mining 35% of the crypto.  That would equate to 31.85 billion kWh consumed in the USA on mining.  So that's annual generation for over 2 nuclear plants just on crypto mining.

 

https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/cryptocurrency/articles/us-is-now-the-biggest-bitcoin-miner-in-the-world-should-we-be-happy/

 

Since we're seeing a 10-fold jump over 5 years ago (presumably 9.1 billion kWh), it is logical to conclude that the consumption rates (if left unchecked) will continue to grow exponentially. 

[Lightwreather]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

Since we're seeing a 10-fold jump over 5 years ago (presumably 9.1 billion kWh), it is logical to conclude that the consumption rates (if left unchecked) will continue to grow exponentially. 

So just a couple things that need to be noted.

Etheruem, (currently the most popular to mine on GPUs) is moving to a Proof-of-Stake system sometime next year, so that may cut down on it. (or they start mining another altcoin and this doesn't do much)

Take it however you wish to take it