The Dark Side of the Coin: Uncovering the Hidden Costs of Bitcoin's Explosive Rise
By Harsha Bhamidipati
Introduction
As one reads this paper, massive server farms in Texas and North Carolina hum with an almost deafening intensity, all in the relentless pursuit of mining Bitcoin. Rows upon rows of high-powered computers, equipped with roaring cooling fans and neon lights that flash in a hypnotic rhythm, tirelessly work to solve perplexing mathematical problems, generating the digital currency that has taken the world by storm. This modern-day gold rush, however, has come at a staggering cost. The insatiable hunger for energy that fuels Bitcoin mining is now a significant contributor to climate change, leaving a trail of environmental devastation and social upheaval in its wake.Â
As the world recovered in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, many doubted the fairness of financial institutions, and as a response, Satoshi Nakamoto proposed a revolutionary system that bypasses intermediaries, providing a secure and decentralized way to make transactions (Nakamoto, 2008). This alternative quickly gained traction as a disruptive technology to fiat currencies, attracting the attention of both the finance and tech industries.
The mining of the first Bitcoin, the genesis block, in 2009 marked the beginning of an unparalleled era of growth. Since then, the network has rapidly expanded, and more users and businesses have embraced Bitcoin as a legitimate payment option (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2017). This meteoric rise bears testament to the profound impact of Bitcoin on the global financial landscape.
The blockchain, a fundamental component of Bitcoin technology, operates as a decentralized public ledger. A worldwide network of computers, maintained by collaborative nodes, verifies transactions and preserves the network's integrity (Swan, 2015). The intricate process of verifying each transaction, referred to as mining, requires nodes to engage in a competitive race to solve complex mathematical equations. Only after successfully completing these equations can the nodes add new blocks to the chain, solidifying the legitimacy of each transaction. This rigorous procedure ensures that no single entity controls the network or the ledger (Bolt, 2017). The decentralized and secure nature of the blockchain has transformed the way we think about transactions, offering new possibilities for trust, transparency, and accountability in various fields.
Bitcoin's worth is determined by supply and demand dynamics in the market, but the total number of available coins is capped at 21 million (Böhme, Christin, Edelman, & Moore, 2015). Miners play a crucial role in the distribution of remaining coins over time as part of the mining reward process, having already mined over 18 million Bitcoins as of 2023. The price of Bitcoin experiences sharp fluctuations due to various factors, including adoption by mainstream companies, regulatory changes, and investor sentiment, making it a highly volatile asset (Yermack, 2015).
Despite this volatility, many investors view Bitcoin as a potential hedge against inflation and a way to diversify their portfolio. Bitcoin's decentralized nature offers an alternative to traditional investments and financial institutions, making it a viable option for those seeking greater financial autonomy. As such, the continued growth of the Bitcoin market reflects the growing demand for digital assets and the increasing interest in blockchain technology.
Governance and regulation of Bitcoin pose significant challenges due to its decentralized nature. With the network's expansion, experts debate the size of blocks on the blockchain and the use of Bitcoin in illegal activities, such as money laundering and the purchase of illegal goods on darknet markets (Böhme et al., 2015). Although some governments take a hostile stance towards cryptocurrencies, others have initiated efforts to regulate them, aiming to prevent their use in illegal activities and safeguard consumers (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2017). The fate of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies remains uncertain, given the challenges they pose to existing financial systems and the emerging regulatory landscape.
Bitcoin's commodity chain comprises a multi-step process involving mining, processing, and distributing digital currency (Nakamoto, 2008). Despite being intangible, Bitcoin adheres to many of the same principles as physical commodities, such as gold and oil, in terms of its creation and distribution.
Analysis
Bitcoin mining is a resource-intensive process that requires a significant amount of electricity and computing power. The energy consumption needed for Bitcoin mining ranges from 91 to 135 terawatt-hours per year, equivalent to the annual energy consumption of countries like Argentina or the Netherlands (Huang, O’Neill , & Tabuchi, 2021). China previously played a pivotal role in the Bitcoin mining industry due to its low electricity costs and abundant coal supply for electricity generation. However, in May 2021, the Chinese government cracked down on Bitcoin mining and trading activities due to environmental concerns (Sigalos, 2021b). Destinations like Kazakhstan, Russia, and the United States, which offer lower electricity rates and better access to renewable energy sources, have emerged as attractive locations for miners to relocate and continue their operations (de Vries, 2021).
The energy-intensive nature of Bitcoin mining has sparked debates about the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies. While some argue that Bitcoin mining contributes to climate change, others believe that renewable energy sources like solar and wind can sustainably power the mining process. In recent years, there has been a shift towards using renewable energy sources in Bitcoin mining, with some miners investing in solar and wind farms to power their operations (de Vries, 2021). As the world transitions to clean energy, it is possible that Bitcoin mining could become a more environmentally friendly process.
The sustainability of the Bitcoin mining process is a complex topic deserving its own paper. However, this paper focuses on the implications of energy usage during times of crisis, particularly in the face of the daunting challenge of climate change. The energy-intensive nature of Bitcoin mining has emerged as a critical concern. As the frequency and severity of natural disasters such as rising sea levels, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, and cold waves intensify, the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining has come under intense scrutiny. This is particularly evident in Texas, where the Bitcoin mining industry's impact on the energy market has been highlighted through extreme meteorological events like Winter Storm Uri in 2021 and heatwaves in June 2022. These events underscore the alarming way Bitcoin mining exerts undue influence over the local energy market, exacerbating the financial burden on the local population during times of crisis.
Case Study: Texas
The Lone Star State of Texas has emerged as a Bitcoin mining powerhouse, benefiting from advantageous conditions such as affordable electricity rates and lenient regulations. In fact, the state accounts for a substantial 14% of the world's Bitcoin mining activities  (Sigalos, 2021a). Texas's rural areas, with vast expanses of land, are ideal for housing Bitcoin mining facilities, which require significant space for hosting computing machines, cooling systems, and other data hardware. With the availability of land and pre-existing energy infrastructure from abandoned industrial plants, like the Alcoa plant, along with the support of blockchain enthusiasts and influential politicians, Rockdale, Texas, has established itself as a premier location for Bitcoin mining operations  (Sigalos, 2021b).Â
The Alcoa plant in Rockdale had relied on 80% of its workforce from the local population until its closure in 2008, causing a decade-long financial burden for the community (Green & Kazi, 2022). Environmental activists pushed for fair regulations on pollution levels from the plant, and the abrupt closure resulted in job losses and income reduction for many in the area. Seeking to revive the local economy, community officials turned to Bitcoin mining as a potential savior for Rockdale. They viewed the emerging industry as an opportunity to provide new livelihood opportunities and uplift the community from the economic downturn (Green & Kazi, 2022).
In 2019, the value of Bitcoin experienced a significant surge, leading to a rush of companies establishing their operations across Texas. Bitdeer and Riot platforms, two Bitcoin mining companies located at the Alcoa plant in Rockdale, employed around 300 local contractors (Blockchain technology in Texas, 2021). However, this placed a significant strain on the power grid, as six other mining companies also connected to the Texas electricity grid (Weber, 2023). This sudden increase in Bitcoin mining resulted in a staggering $1.8 billion per year increase in electricity bills for customers, which is equivalent to the power consumed by over 2 million homes annually (Weber, 2023).
To mitigate the impact of energy-intensive companies on the grid, ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas), a not-for-profit organization that operates the deregulated electricity grid in Texas, often entered into agreements with such companies to incentivize them through payments to shut down their operations during critical blackout periods (Weber, 2023).
In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri battered Texas, leaving millions of Texans without power for days, while Bitcoin miners continued to consume large amounts of electricity, exacerbating the energy crisis (Weber, 2023). As people struggled to stay warm and safe, Bitcoin mining operations added further pressure to the already overburdened power grid. In a grim scenario where the need for power for essential services and homes clashed with the energy requirements of Bitcoin mining, Bitdeer was paid an average of $175,000 per hour by ERCOT to shut down operations during the power crisis. These costs were ultimately borne by Texans who had suffered from the storm, while Bitcoin miners sold electricity back to Texans at exorbitant prices, putting a significant financial strain on residential customers. For instance, one Bitcoin company made a staggering $10 million by reselling electricity to other customers (Dance, 2023).Â
"In contrast, the economic impact on Texans was devastating, with estimates ranging from $80 to $100 billion in losses resulting from infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, and loss of livelihoods  (Donald, 2021).Despite criticism from some federal lawmakers about ERCOT's support for the industry, Governor Abbot tweeted in June 2021 that "Texas will be the crypto leader" (Abbot, 2021).
By controlling their energy usage and promptly shutting down operations, Bitcoin mining companies can save and generate revenue. This approach enables them to avoid fees imposed during periods of high electricity demand, as exemplified by the strategy employed by Riot platform in Rockdale. During peak summer months, the company reduced its electricity usage by 99%, resulting in a $5.5 million reduction in fees typically covered by taxpayers. Riot's participation in ERCOT's blackout prevention program, reselling pre-purchased electricity, and Bitcoin mining led to profits of $156 million in 2022. Additionally, the company saved $27 million in potential fees (Dance, 2023). Â This example illustrates the lucrative potential of the Bitcoin mining industry and the importance of managing energy consumption to maximize profits.
The Texas energy market has become a battleground for the competing interests of Bitcoin mining companies, energy providers, and environmental advocates. The substantial energy consumption required for Bitcoin mining has raised serious concerns about the environmental impact and who bears the associated costs. The power dynamics in the Texas energy markets are shifting as Bitcoin mining firms gain increasing control over the supply and demand of electricity.
The case of Rockdale serves as a prime example of the significant influence that Bitcoin mining companies wield over the energy market. These companies are drawn to states like Texas due to favorable conditions, including lower taxes and cheaper electricity costs. However, this has resulted in a situation where the energy needs of residential customers and essential services clash with the energy demands of Bitcoin miners.
As the Texas energy market continues to evolve, it is imperative to address the critical issues stemming from Bitcoin mining. The impact on the environment and the financial burden on residential customers cannot be overlooked. The question that persists is: who truly bears the costs of Bitcoin mining, and how can we ensure that the electricity markets remain equitable?
Another energy-intensive yet essential aspect of Bitcoin mining is cooling. The computing units employed in the mining process generate a substantial amount of heat, necessitating the use of large and noisy fans to dissipate it. However, the constant humming sound produced by these fans can have far-reaching consequences, including noise pollution that adversely affects the surrounding environment.
While the Texas case study offers insights into the broader implications of Bitcoin mining, the Murphy, North Carolina case study delves into the specific impact of noise pollution on local communities and wildlife. The low-frequency hum generated by the mining fans can result in considerable harm to the natural ecosystem and disrupt the sleep patterns of local residents. This, in turn, can lead to long-term health effects, including elevated stress levels, hearing loss, and sleep deprivation. Additionally, wildlife populations in the area may suffer adverse effects, with many animals undergoing changes in their behavior and migration patterns.
Case Study: North Carolina
Murphy, a serene town nestled in Cherokee County, is an ideal haven for retired professionals seeking to escape the hustle and bustle of city life. For generations, residents have cherished the tranquility of the area's bird songs and the chirping of summer cicadas. However, in 2021, a San Francisco-based cryptocurrency mining company, Prime Block, received permission to establish its data center in Murphy, leading some to perceive it as an innocuous venture (Williams & Tenjarla, 2022). Cherokee County has witnessed the establishment of four Bitcoin mines since 2020, thanks to the availability of hydroelectric power and extensive vacant land. Regrettably, the constant, piercing hum from the cooling fans of the mining facilities is now drowning out the symphony of nature (Williams & Tenjarla, 2022). The location of this mountainous paradise in the Appalachian Mountains makes it uniquely susceptible to noise pollution. Research suggests that open landscapes allow sound to travel over long distances, and mountains reflect sound (Hedfors & Berg, 2003). Additionally, the absence of leaves on trees in the winter months eliminates the possibility of sound absorption.
Research shows that the human ear can tolerate up to about 50 decibels, a level comparable to birdsong or the sound of moderate rainfall  (CDC, 2022) . Moreover, with each additional 5 decibels beyond the nominal level, the potential for cardiovascular complications looms larger (Münzel, Gori, Babisch, & Basner, 2014). The high sound levels generated by a single Bitcoin mining operation, ranging from 70 to 90 decibels, pose health risks in towns like Murphy, where the median age of the population is 42.5 years. Furthermore, the computational facilities require the fans to remain operational 24/7 to mine the cryptocurrency. Despite numerous complaints submitted to the Cherokee power operators, officials deemed that no action was necessary (Williams & Tenjarla, 2022). As a result, some residents have relocated to higher altitudes or neighboring towns.
The absence of up-to-date or effective noise and environmental regulations adds an additional layer of complexity to the situation. According to the Cherokee County Code of Ordinances, the noise ordinance aims to regulate excessive, unnecessary, and offensive noise to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare. The law prohibits sources from generating loud, unusual, and unnecessary noise that can be heard from a distance of 100 feet or more from the source's property line (Government, 1999). The imprecise use of the term "loud" without an appropriate threshold level allows Bitcoin mining companies to exploit the law. When residents sought help from officials in the Secretary of State's office, they encountered bureaucratic hurdles  (Williams & Tenjarla, 2022).
Noise pollution, characterized by sounds above 70 decibels, is a growing environmental issue that affects various wildlife, including birds. Anthropogenic noise, such as traffic noise, disrupts the communication patterns of Carolina Wrens—a fairly common bird in Murphy (Senzaki et al., 2020). The study revealed that these birds increased their song output in response to higher noise levels, which can impact their ability to communicate with each other and attract mates. The incessant hum produced by a cryptocurrency mine in Murphy may also impact the Carolina wren's singing behaviors and lead to a decline in their population, according to residents' accounts.
Noise pollution can also affect the frequency and intensity of bird vocalizations, as demonstrated by a study showing a shift in bird songs' frequency in urban areas with high low-frequency noise levels  (Halfwerk, Holleman, Lessells, & Slabbekoorn, 2011). Additionally, noise pollution can lead to chronic stress in birds, negatively impacting their immune system and reproductive success, as shown in a study by Hedfors & Berg in 2003. (Hedfors & Berg, 2003). Residents of Murphy suggest that other wildlife, such as deer, are moving to higher altitudes to avoid the hum from the mine  (Williams & Tenjarla, 2022).
This case study highlights the far-reaching impact of cryptocurrency mining in Western North Carolina. It underscores the importance of responsible decision-making processes in establishing businesses, as their actions can have significant environmental and social ramifications. The people and wildlife of Murphy are now clamoring for action, as the intrusion of Bitcoin mining in their once serene abode has had consequences. The hum of cooling fans has drowned out the symphony of nature, leaving both humans and animals stressed and disoriented.
Conclusion
The Bitcoin industry has been celebrated as a revolutionary force challenging the traditional financial system, yet it has left in its wake significant ecological and societal consequences. The energy-intensive process of Bitcoin mining has raised concerns about its carbon footprint and its impact on local communities. The Texas case study illustrates how Bitcoin mining firms manipulate the energy market and take advantage of the local population during times of crisis. The state's unregulated electricity grid and the absence of regulatory oversight have given these firms free rein to operate, leaving Texans to bear the financial burden and environmental consequences. The North Carolina case study shows how a lack of appropriate decision-making processes can have harmful effects on both humans and wildlife.
As the world grapples with the formidable challenges of climate change and social inequality, it is imperative for the Bitcoin industry to acknowledge its responsibility to address these urgent issues. The industry must take decisive action to reduce its carbon footprint by evaluating its electricity requirements. As the technology continues to evolve and more businesses and individuals adopt it, the impact of other aspects of the Bitcoin commodity chain on society and the economy will become clearer. Furthermore, it must collaborate with local communities to ensure that its operations do not harm or exploit vulnerable populations.
The future of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies must be built on a foundation of sustainability and social responsibility, rather than pursuing short-term profits at any cost. Only then can the industry genuinely claim to be a force for positive change in the world. In the meantime, we must ask, who truly bears the cost of the Bitcoin mining industry?
References
Abbot, G. (2021). Tweet. Retrieved from
https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1406104291950071808
Blockchain technology in Texas, The Texas Senate, (2021).
Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance. The Journal of economic perspectives, 29(2), 213-238. doi:10.1257/jep.29.2.213
Bolt, W. (2017). Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Journal of economic literature, 55(2), 467-469.Â
CDC. (2022). What Noises Cause Hearing Loss? Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html
Dance, G. J. X. (2023). The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/bitcoin-mining-electricity-pollution.html?searchResultPosition=2
de Vries, A. (2021). Bitcoin boom: What rising prices mean for the network’s energy consumption. Joule, 5(3), 509-513. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2021.02.006
Donald, j. (2021). Winter Storm Uri 2021
The Economic Impact of the Storm. Retrieved from https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2021/oct/winter-storm-impact.php
Government. (1999). Retrieved from https://www.cherokeecounty-nc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/328/Noise-Ordinance-PDF?bidId=.
Green, D., & Kazi, S. (2022). Cryptocurrency in Texas
Opportunities and Challenges in Mining Digital Coins. Retrieved from https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2022/aug/crypto-tx.php
Halfwerk, W., Holleman, L. J. M., Lessells, C. M., & Slabbekoorn, H. (2011). Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. The Journal of applied ecology, 48(1), 210-219. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01914.x
Hedfors, P., & Berg, P. G. (2003). The sounds of two landscape settings: auditory concepts for physical planning and design. Landscape Research, 28(3), 245-263.Â
Huang, J., O’Neill , C., & Tabuchi, H. (2021). Bitcoin Uses More Electricity Than Many Countries. How Is That Possible? New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html
Münzel, T., Gori, T., Babisch, W., & Basner, M. (2014). Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure. Eur Heart J, 35(13), 829-836. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu030
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized business review, 21260.Â
Senzaki, M., Barber, J. R., Phillips, J. N., Carter, N. H., Cooper, C. B., Ditmer, M. A., . . . Tyrrell, L. P. (2020). Sensory pollutants alter bird phenology and fitness across a continent. Nature, 587(7835), 605-609.Â
Sigalos, M. (2021a). New York and Texas are winning the war to attract bitcoin miners. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/09/war-to-attract-bitcoin-miners-pits-texas-against-new-york-kentucky.html
Sigalos, M. (2021b). Two of the biggest bitcoin mining companies in the world are battling it out in a Texas town of 5,600 people. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/31/bitcoin-mining-giants-bitdeer-riot-blockchain-in-rockdale-texas.html
Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain : blueprint for a new economy (First edition. ed.). Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media.
Tapscott, A., & Tapscott, D. (2017). How blockchain is changing finance. Harvard Business Review, 1(9), 2-5.Â
Weber, P. (2023). How voracious Bitcoin mining is messing with Texans. The Week. Retrieved from https://theweek.com/in-depth/1022698/how-voracious-bitcoin-mining-is-messing-with-texans
Williams, K., & Tenjarla, R. (2022). A neighborhood’s cryptocurrency mine: ‘Like a jet that never leaves’. The Washington Post (Online).Â
Yermack, D. (2015). Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? An Economic Appraisal. In (pp. 31-43).
