Exactly. Every article about this seems to cut corners when it comes to this very thing. Even in this one, the small print admits that they averaged the amount of CO2 produced by power plants in a given country, skipping over the fact that cryptocurrency farms will gravitate towards cheap energy sources for obvious economic reasons, which makes them much more likely to be using hydropower than coal, for instance.

It doesn't matter for a limited supply of energy. If we have hydro power available as well as coal, Bitcoin miners being located near hydro means that they hog that supply. Energy that could supply other uses is now not available and uses which previously relied on coal still rely on coal (because the usage only creeps up).

> Energy that could supply other uses is now not available

Could, but often isn't. I don't have a good source other than an obviously biased one (https://www.coindesk.com/the-last-word-on-bitcoins-energy-co...), but this does sound sensible:

> Sichuan, second only in the hashpower rankings to Xinjiang, is a province characterized by a massive overbuild of hydroelectric power in the last decade. Sichuan’s installed hydro capacity is double what its power grid can support, leading to lots of “curtailment” (or waste). Dams can only store so much potential energy in the form of water before they must let it out. It’s an open secret that this otherwise-wasted energy has been put to use mining Bitcoin

China already built 2 of the longest transmission lines in the world (~2000km), so location doesn't seem a huge issue. The question is - is the extra energy not being transported because there's an existing use for it (btc), or would it be generated and not used anyway. Or would the power plants just get shut down otherwise?

I know that we mine roughly 8% of bitcoin here in Iceland and our power comes from hydro as well.

Since the time where most of the Bitcoin "farm" are in Mongolia using electricity from coal energy plants.

None of the farms analyzed in the article are in Mongolia: https://github.com/Camilo-Mora/Bitcoin/blob/master/Katie_Tab...

they are mostly in western chinese provinces like yunnan and sichuan where hydroelectric power is common. Miners in (inner) mongolia are using geothermal.

*Citation Needed

Since when does anyone have to use a gas-powered car instead of riding a bike?

Since when does anyone have to heat their house instead of wearing more layers when it gets cold?

This idea that Bitcoin could potentially use only renewable sources of energy is a popular narrative among Bitcoin circles, but it flies in the face of common sense. Crypto proponents keep circulating stories about miners using excess renewable energy, but we all know that this isn't the norm.

Governments could pass laws tomorrow requiring all crypto mining use 100% renewable energy by a certain date, just as like they are doing with cars. They could also pass minimum efficiency standards for mining, just as they do for heating appliances. I for one would welcome both moves. Even though your points were meant as counterexamples, what they really illuminate is that the crypto mining industry needs proper regulation, just like cars and heaters.

Electricity is fungible, attached to a grid, and we aren't at 100% renewable.

So unless the miners are going out of their way to build their own solar capacity (they aren't), it's all essentially carbon.