ArticleThe international journal of life cycle assessment2022
Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant.
Article in The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Climate sustainability through a dynamic duo: Green hydrogen and crypto driving energy transition and decarbonization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Climate concerns and the future of nonfungible tokens: Leveraging environmental benefits of the Ethereum Merge.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDue 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.
methodsA 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
conclusionsBehind-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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.