看起來關於比特幣挖礦消耗多少能源的公關之爭畢竟還沒結束。不久前，我宣布它已經贏了——實際上花了很多時間研究這個問題的人們的不懈抵制平息了批評和擔憂。事實和推理克服了散播恐懼和使用觸發詞。
多麼天真。
上週，能源部下屬統計機構美國能源資訊管理局（EIA）對比特幣生態系統開了幾槍。
其中之一是 EIA 宣布將對所有美國比特幣礦商進行強制性調查。
另一個是發布了一份報告，其中對美國比特幣挖礦消耗的能源進行了「官方」估計。
Noelle Acheson 是 CoinDesk 和 Genesis Trading 的前研究主管，也是 CoinDesk Markets Daily 播客的主持人。本文摘自她的《加密貨幣現在是宏觀》時事通訊，該通訊重點關注不斷變化的加密貨幣和宏觀景觀之間的重疊。這些觀點是她的，她寫的任何內容都不應被視為投資建議。
讓我們仔細看看。
資訊收集
從本月開始一直到 7 月底，EIA 將定期向所有美國比特幣礦商進行調查，要求提供有關其運營的詳細信息，重點關注其能源來源和消耗情況。
資訊是好的，對比特幣能源消耗的更詳細的了解最終可以透過數據來消除氣候活動人士和敵對監管機構的誇大說法。
這裡的問題是比特幣挖礦被單獨挑選出來。沒有人建議人工智慧專案受到同樣的審查，儘管其龐大的資料中心所需的能源開始引起關注。
更重要的是，資訊收集工作並不是從中立立場開始的。
通常情況下，政府調查必須由管理和預算辦公室 (OMB) 在評估必要性和詳細程度後簽署。比特幣挖礦調查的批准是通過緊急修訂請求徵求的，因為根據提交的文件，“如果遵循正常的審批程序，很可能會造成公共損害。”
有什麼緊急狀況？ 「可能」的公共傷害在哪裡？
來自官方要求：
「作為證據，比特幣的價格在過去三個月裡上漲了大約 50%，更高的價格刺激了更多的加密貨幣挖礦活動，這反過來又增加了電力消耗。”
啊哈。
進一步的線索在於宣布數據收集活動時發布的報告。
It specifically mentions growing concern about the energy-intensive nature of Bitcoin mining, citing two letters to the U.S. Secretary of Energy from elected officials asking for more detailed information to better identify the impact of Bitcoin mining on emissions. It will come as a surprise to no-one that both of those letters came from Senator Elizabeth Warren and her gang.
What the numbers mean
Also in the accompanying report is an estimate of the amount of electricity used by U.S.-based Bitcoin miners. The estimate the agency came up with is between 0.6% and 2.3% of all U.S. electricity consumption. This is a wide band, but nevertheless it is couched in terms to imply that, whatever the actual figure, it’s too much. Even the lower end of the band, the report clarifies, would equal the annual electricity usage for all of Utah, West Virginia or other similar states. The higher end, we’re told, is equivalent to the power consumption of roughly six million homes.
Never mind that comparing Bitcoin mining consumption to that of an entire state is like comparing apples to signposts – the former contributes to the maintenance of a global financial network, the latter covers a wide range of industrial, public service, distribution and lifestyle activities. The subliminal implication is that more families could have electricity if Bitcoin mining went elsewhere.
Read more: Dan Kuhn - The U.S. Government Seems to Be Closing in on Bitcoin Mining
Unsurprisingly, mainstream media got to work crafting headlines to get the outraged clicks. Here are just a few examples I spotted:
Bloomberg – US Bitcoin Miners Use as Much Electricity as Everyone in Utah
Yahoo Finance – Crypto Mining Consumes a Mind-Boggling 2% of U.S. Electricity
Ars Technica – Over 2 percent of the US’s electricity generation now goes to bitcoin
Yet the estimate, even if accurate, makes no mention of the following facts:
More than half of U.S.-based Bitcoin mining is done with renewable energy sources.
A significant portion of these renewable sources would not be economically viable were it not for Bitcoin miners acting as initial anchor client, enhancing generator profitability and access to finance.
Bitcoin miners often use energy that would otherwise be wasted by locating consumption close to the source, adding income that operators can use to improve and extend transmission.
Bitcoin’s energy consumption helps mitigate contamination from fossil fuel production by using methane gas that would otherwise be flared into the atmosphere.
Bitcoin’s energy consumption helps stabilize grids by acting as an industrial swing consumer – this not only keeps the grid humming when demand is weak, it also provides additional income to grid operators that can finance further grid improvements.
Normally, I would assume that this is just another annoying attempt to curtail acceptance of Bitcoin in the U.S., that could be swatted away with reasoning and facts. Yet this has signs of being something more.
First, the timing, so soon after the U.S. listing of BTC spot ETFs (which certain regulators were vehemently against), is probably not a coincidence. A secondary objective could be to remind investors that the Administration does not like Bitcoin. This adds a layer of perceived investment risk.
Second, the move signals a different attack vector. Since enough reputable studies now show that Bitcoin mining has a net positive environmental impact, antagonistic regulators are trying a new approach: it’s not contamination any more, it’s potential grid strain. The “emergency” authorization request cites the cold weather in the U.S. and the likelihood that entire communities could be left stranded because Bitcoin miners are hogging electricity.
This, too, can be swatted away with detailed explanations of how Bitcoin mining’s flexible demand strengthens grid management and stable consumption even during peak demand and climate crises. Meanwhile, however, the implication is used to penalize an industry the regulators don’t like. Here we get to the bigger issue.
It’s not just the cost involved, which is considerable. More paperwork invariably generates additional expense. There’s also the likelihood that the resulting database could facilitate further clampdowns. Neither outcome is good, but they’re focused on one industry for now.
No, the bigger issue is regulatory prejudice, and the lasting damage that can have on investment in U.S.-based production and innovation.
The subliminal implication is that more families could have electricity if Bitcoin mining went elsewhere
Imagine a country in which regulators decide what energy can be used for. Once they have stamped out one industry, there is a non-zero chance they’ll pivot to another. This adds to the risk of investing in productive capacity, it adds to the financing costs, and it encourages more investment offshore.
Bitcoin itself will be fine, whatever the U.S. Administration can throw at it. The network will continue to validate transactions and process blocks, no matter how oppressive certain regimes can become. More supportive regimes will benefit from the business, energy grid support and access to a financial system that does not care about dollar hegemony.
Yet this heavy-handed approach will end up hurting more than Bitcoin mining businesses in the U.S. The country has a strong entrepreneurial spirit, a tradition of property protection and deep capital markets. These are worth preserving. It would be such a pity if illogical regulatory antagonism to certain industries ended up hurting the reputation and dynamism of a jurisdiction the world looks to for business inspiration.
