Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Analysis of Bitcoin Mining Equipment Using Sphera LCA and ecoinvent Databases

Published 31 Jan 2024 in cs.CY | (2401.17512v2)

Abstract: Bitcoin mining is regularly pointed out for its massive energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions, hence contributing significantly to climate change. However, most studies ignore the environmental impacts of producing mining equipment, which is problematic given the short lifespan of such highly specific hardware. In this study, we perform a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) of dedicated Bitcoin mining equipment, considering their specific architecture. Our results show that the application-specific integrated circuit designed for Bitcoin mining is the main contributor to production-related impacts. This observation applies to most impact categories, including the global warming potential. In addition, this finding stresses out the necessity to carefully consider the specificity of the hardware. By comparing these results with several usage scenarios, we also demonstrate that the impacts of producing this type of equipment can be significant (up to 80% of the total life cycle impacts), depending on the sources of electricity supply for the use phase. Therefore, we highlight the need to consider the production phase when assessing the environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining hardware. To test the validity of our results, we use the Sphera LCA and ecoinvent databases for the background modeling of our system. Surprisingly, it leads to results with variations of up to 4 orders of magnitude for toxicity-related indicators, despite using the same foreground modeling. This database mismatch phenomenon, already identified in previous studies, calls for better understanding, consideration and discussion of environmental impacts in the field of electronics, going well beyond climate change indicators.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. Regional e-waste monitor for the CIS+ Georgia–2021.
  2. The bitcoin mining network-trends, marginal creation cost, electricity consumption & sources. CoinShares Research, 21:3–19.
  3. Bevand, M. (2017). Electricity consumption of Bitcoin: a market-based and technical analysis. Retrieved February 4, 2019, from mrb’s blog: http://blog. zorinaq. com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption.
  4. CBECI (2023a). Comparison. Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance. University of Cambridge. Visited the 26/12/2023. Available online at https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/comparisons.
  5. CBECI (2023b). Evolution of network hashrate, Bitcoin Mining Map, Index. Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance. University of Cambridge. Available online at https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/mining_map.
  6. CBECI (2023c). Greenhouse Gases Emissions, Index. Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance. University of Cambridge. Available online at https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg .
  7. CoinShare (2022). The Bitcoin Network - Energy and Carbon Impact. Available online at: https://coinshares.com/fr/research/bitcoin-mining-network-2022.
  8. De Vries, A. (2018). Bitcoin’s growing energy problem. Joule, 2(5):801–805.
  9. De Vries, A. (2020). Bitcoin’s energy consumption is underestimated: A market dynamics approach. Energy Research & Social Science, 70:101721.
  10. Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint. Joule, 6(3):498–502.
  11. Bitcoin’s growing e-waste problem. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 175:105901.
  12. A life cycle assessment of two residential buildings using two different LCA database-software combinations: Recognizing uniformities and inconsistencies. Buildings, 9(1):20.
  13. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential.
  14. Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies beyond bitcoin. Joule, 4(9):1843–1846.
  15. Life cycle assessment. Springer.
  16. Does it matter which Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool you choose?–a comparative assessment of SimaPro and GaBi. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86:163–169.
  17. Impacts of life cycle inventory databases on life cycle assessments: A review by means of a drivetrain case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269:121329.
  18. Life cycle assessment of bitcoin mining. Environmental science & technology, 53(23):13598–13606.
  19. Quantification of energy and carbon costs for mining cryptocurrencies. Nature Sustainability, 1(11):711–718.
  20. Energy consumption of cryptocurrency mining: A study of electricity consumption in mining cryptocurrencies. Energy, 168:160–168.
  21. Environmental and health impacts due to e-waste disposal in China–A review. Science of the Total Environment, 737:139745.
  22. IPCC, 2021: Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
  23. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint.
  24. Sources of variation in life cycle assessments of smartphones and tablet computers. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 84:106416.
  25. Carbon Footprint Comparison of Bitcoin and Conventional Currencies in a Life Cycle Analysis Perspective. Procedia CIRP, 116:468–473.
  26. Paris agreement (2015). In report of the conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (21st session, 2015: Paris). Retrived December, volume 4, page 2017. HeinOnline.
  27. Parrer, J.-A. (2019). Comparative Analysis of the CO2 Footprint of Bitcoin Transactions versus Traditional Financial Transactions using Life-Cycle-Assessment. Technical report, Vienna University of Economics and buisness.
  28. The Influence of Database Selection on Environmental Impact Results. Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Using GaBi, Ecoinvent 3.6, and the Environmental Footprint Database. Sustainability, 12(23).
  29. Assessing the embodied carbon footprint of iot edge devices with a bottom-up life-cycle approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 322:128966.
  30. The Environmental Footprint of IC Production: Review, Analysis and Lessons from Historical Trends. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing.
  31. Non-linearity in the life cycle assessment of scalable and emerging technologies. Frontiers in Sustainability, 1:611593.
  32. Life Cycle Assessment of the Fairphone 3.
  33. Life cycle assessment of behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining at US power plant. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 27(3):355–365.
  34. Uncertainty management and sensitivity analysis. Life cycle assessment: theory and practice, pages 271–321.
  35. Toxicity trends in E-Waste: A comparative analysis of metals in discarded mobile phones. Journal of hazardous materials, 380:120898.
  36. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1):81–98.
  37. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223):1259855.
  38. The carbon footprint of bitcoin. Joule, 3(7):1647–1661.
  39. Taylor, M. B. (2013). Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In 2013 international conference on compilers, architecture and synthesis for embedded systems (CASES), pages 1–10. IEEE.
  40. Taylor, M. B. (2017). The evolution of bitcoin hardware. Computer, 50(9):58–66.
  41. Teehan, P. (2014). Integrative approaches to environmental life cycle assessment of consumer electronics and connected media. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.
  42. The 1.7 kilogram microchip: Energy and material use in the production of semiconductor devices. Environmental science & technology, 36(24):5504–5510.
Citations (1)

Summary

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 0 likes about this paper.