<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Bitcoin Carbon Footprint: Mining Pools Based Estimate Methodology</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Kateryna Kononova</string-name>
          <email>kateryna.kononova@karazin.ua</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Anton Dek</string-name>
          <email>dek@karazin.ua</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Economic Cybernetics and Applied Economics, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University</institution>
          ,
          <country country="UA">Ukraine</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>265</fpage>
      <lpage>273</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The paper deals with the cryptoeconomy impact on the environment. The term 'cryptoeconomy' is used for designating the emerging industry around cryptocurrencies and blockchain. Cryptocurrency mining consumes a lot of electricity. As of September 2019, the estimated annual miners' electricity consumption was 78.93 TWh. According to the upper boundary estimation, miners' carbon dioxide emissions were about 80.43 million tons of CO2, which corresponds to 0.24% of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions. The aim of this paper is to develop bitcoin mining carbon footprint estimation methodology. The suggested method is based on the miners' geographical distribution obtained by analyzing the traffic of mining pools login pages. The methodology includes 1) assessment of the miners' geographical distribution; 2) estimation of the miners' carbon dioxide emissions by regions. According to the proposed methodology, miners' carbon dioxide emissions are about 44.12 million tons per year (0.13% of the world's total emissions), which is two times lower than the upper boundary estimate.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>bitcoin</kwd>
        <kwd>cryptocurrencies</kwd>
        <kwd>mining</kwd>
        <kwd>carbon footprint of bitcoin mining</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1 Introduction</title>
      <p>At the current stage of cryptoeconomy development, the following market segments
can be identified: exchange and brokerage services, payments, storage and custody
(storage of cryptoassets as a service), network consensus services (mining equipment
production and operation), infrastructure (design, development, and maintenance of
the codebases of cryptoasset networks and related applications), alternative
fundraising, banking, and insurance.</p>
      <p>This paper focuses on digital mining which provides network consensus services
and ensures the integrity of cryptocurrencies’ public ledgers, facilitates transactions
and prevents double-spending.</p>
      <p>In 2018, the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance conducted a survey of
miners’ performance indicators. 22 companies and 35 individual miners from different
regions took part in it. According to the survey the indicators were distributed as
follows (Table 1).</p>
      <p>Table 1 shows that the most important indicators for miners are the availability of
electricity and its price. This is due to the fact that mining consumes a lot of electricity.</p>
      <p>Assuming that electricity for bitcoin mining is generated at the coal-fired power
plants only, and knowing its electricity consumption, one can estimate carbon dioxide
emissions by the upper bound3:</p>
      <p>mCO2 = φ * Eestimated,
mCO2 − carbon dioxide emissions, kg
φ − air pollution by power generation, kg / kWh
Eestimated − annual electricity consumption, kWh</p>
      <p>
        Cambridge Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">(Rauchs et al., 2019)</xref>
        estimates
miners’ energy consumption as 78.93 TWh per year. Air pollution for coal-fired power
plants vary by type of coal and equipment; according to the World Energy Outlook
(IEA, 2017), the world average is 1.019 kg CO2 / kWh. Thus, the total carbon dioxide
emissions are about 80.43 million tons of CO2, which corresponds to 0.24% of the
world's total emissions.
      </p>
      <p>
        At the same time, electricity produced by a coal-fired power plant has a significantly
different environmental footprint comparing to electricity generated by a solar park,
for example. Recent studies have shown that the share of renewable energy used by
miners is increasing in the overall structure of energy consumption. However,
estimates vary significantly – from 20%
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">(Rauchs et al., 2018)</xref>
        to over 70% of the total
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">(Coinshares, 2019)</xref>
        .
1 Small Miners are those who have less than 40 employees
2 ‘1’ is not important, ‘2’ is not very important, ‘3’ is neutral, ‘4’ is somewhat important, ‘5’ is very
important
3 This model was used to create the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Index web service.
      </p>
      <p>Therefore, a clarification of the methodology of estimation of carbon dioxide
emissions caused by bitcoin mining is essential.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2 Review of assessment approaches</title>
      <p>
        The assessment of the carbon footprint caused by bitcoin mining has been done in
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">(Foteinis, 2018)</xref>
        ,
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">(Krause et al, 2018)</xref>
        ,
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">(McCook, 2018)</xref>
        ,
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">(Mora et al, 2018)</xref>
        ,
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">(Stoll et al,
2019)</xref>
        ,
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">(Vires, 2019)</xref>
        . Taking into account the miners’ geographical distribution, Stoll
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">(Stoll et al, 2019)</xref>
        suggested using: 1) search results for mining equipment provided by
shodan.io; 2) IPs statistics provided by the blockcypher.com; 3) regional statistics
provided by slushpool and btc.com.
      </p>
      <p>However, since shodan.io provides information about one thousand devices only,
this source cannot be considered as a reliable. The analysis of blockcypher data showed
that more than 70% of IPs come from Amazon, which characterizes the blockcypher’s
servers rather than the actual miners’ distribution. Therefore, only slushpool and
btc.com were used for the methodology development. But these services provide
aggregate statistics, therefore there is a need for further improvements.</p>
      <p>The aim of this paper is the development of a methodology of estimation of carbon
dioxide emissions caused by bitcoin mining, which takes into account the miners’
regional distribution. The methodology includes 1) assessment of the miners’
geographical distribution; 2) estimation of the miners’ carbon dioxide emissions by
regions.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3 Assessment of the miners’ geographical distribution using the traffic of mining pools web pages</title>
      <p>The proposed approach is based on the traffic analysis of the mining pools login
pages. It was assumed that: 1) miners from different regions use login pages in
different regions around the world in the same way; 2) traffic measurement systems
determine the real location of those who are using VPNs, proxies, and other tools that
allow hiding and faking locations.</p>
      <p>In order to get miners’ regional distribution, consensus-estimate of 3 different
internet traffic measurement services were used: SimilarWeb4, Alexa5, SemRush6. The
following login pages have been taken into consideration (Table 2).
4 https://www.similarweb.com
5 https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo
6 https://www.semrush.com</p>
      <p>The pools, considered in detail, cover 80% of the global hash rate. Table 3 shows
an example of slushpool.com data.</p>
      <p>
        Stoll
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">(Stoll et al, 2019)</xref>
        provides aggregate statistics from the slushpool for four
macro-regions: CN (China), EU (Europe), US / CA (US and Canada), JP / SG (Japan
and Singapore). Taking into account these statistics, we cross-check and adjust the data
by regions (Table 4).
7 https://btc.com/stats/pool
      </p>
      <p>Given the adjusted data for btc.com and slushpool, the resulting statistics are as
follows (Table 5).</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Estimation of the miners’ carbon dioxide emissions by regions</title>
      <p>The obtained statistics on the miner’s geographical distribution (Table 5) were used
to estimate carbon dioxide emissions of bitcoin mining (Table 6). The values in the
“kgCO2/kWh” column of Table 6 express the average emission factor for generating
1 kWh of electricity in the given region which was obtained from the “IEA World
Energy Outlook 2017 Annex A Tables for Scenario Projections”. The values of the
column “kWh per year” in Table 6 are calculated as follows: the overall electricity
consumption estimate (78.93 TWh per year) is multiplied by the share of the region.
The share of the region is given in Table 5 (in the column “Total”).
78.93 TWh per year
44.12 million tons of CO2</p>
      <p>According to the proposed methodology, carbon dioxide emissions are about 44.12
million tons per year (0.13% of global emissions), which is two times lower than the
upper boundary estimate.</p>
      <p>However, the proposed approach overestimates the proportion of regions with a
greater concentration of small miners and underestimates the proportion of regions
where large miners are predominant. Having data directly from mining pools would
solve this issue. Currently, work in this area is ongoing.
8 The value for China has been downgraded due to the large share of hydropower used for mining in
Sichuan (Stoll et al, 2019)</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Conclusions and discussion</title>
      <p>The paper presents bitcoin mining carbon footprint estimation methodology based
on the miners’ geographical distribution. The methodology includes 1) assessment of
the miners’ geographical distribution by analyzing the traffic of mining pools login
pages; 2) estimation of the miners’ carbon dioxide emissions by regions.</p>
      <p>According to the proposed methodology, miners’ carbon dioxide emissions are
about 44.12 million tons per year which make 0.13% of the world’s total emissions.
The obtained estimates of electricity consumption and carbon dioxide emissions are
approximately twice as high as the results of the Stoll’s assessment, partly it could be
explained by the significant increase in the bitcoin network hash rate since the
publication of his study.</p>
      <p>At the same time, miners search for cheap electricity worldwide (e.g. hydropower
that occurs in some regions during floods). This leads to reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. On the other hand, countries, which produce fossil-fuel electricity (such as
Kazakhstan and Iran) are gaining popularity among the miners.</p>
      <p>Anyway, increasing electricity consumption may challenge the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. The issue of miners’ electricity consumption and the
corresponding environmental impact should be discussed with policymakers, industry
participants and the general public.
Retrieved
from</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Coinshares</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          ).
          <article-title>The Bitcoin Mining Network</article-title>
          . https://coinshares.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/MiningWhitepaperJun2019FinalForeword.pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Foteinis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Bitcoin's Alarming Carbon Footprint</article-title>
          .
          <source>Nature</source>
          . Vol.
          <volume>554</volume>
          (
          <issue>7691</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>169</fpage>
          . Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01625-x
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>International</given-names>
            <surname>Energy Agency</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          ). World Energy Outlook. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook
          <article-title>-2017</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Krause</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tolaymat</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Quantification of Energy and Carbon Costs for Mining Cryptocurrencies</article-title>
          .
          <source>Nature Sustainability</source>
          . Vol.
          <volume>1</volume>
          . P.
          <volume>711</volume>
          -
          <fpage>718</fpage>
          . Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0152-7.pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>McCook</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
          <article-title>The Cost &amp; Sustainability of Bitcoin</article-title>
          . Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/37178295/The_Cost_and_ Sustainability_of_Bitcoin_August_
          <year>2018</year>
          _
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mora</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Rollin,s
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.L.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Taladay</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Kantar</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.B.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Chock</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.K.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Shimada</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Franklin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>E.C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
          <source>Bitcoin Emissions Alone Could Push Global Warming</source>
          Above 2°
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Nature Climate Change</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2018</year>
          . Vol.
          <volume>8</volume>
          . P.
          <volume>931</volume>
          -
          <fpage>933</fpage>
          . Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8.pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rauchs</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Blandin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dek</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          ). Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index. Retrieved from https://cbeci.org/
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rauchs</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Blandin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Klein</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pieters</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Recanatini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
          <source>2nd Global Cryptoasset Benchmarking Study</source>
          . Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. Retrieved from https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternativefinance/downloads/2018-12-ccaf
          <string-name>
            <surname>-</surname>
          </string-name>
          2nd
          <article-title>-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking</article-title>
          .pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stoll</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Klaaßen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gallersdörfer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          ).
          <source>The Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin. Cell</source>
          . Vol.
          <volume>3</volume>
          , Issue 7. P.
          <volume>1647</volume>
          -
          <fpage>1661</fpage>
          . Retrieved from https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=
          <fpage>S2542</fpage>
          -
          <volume>4351</volume>
          %
          <fpage>2819</fpage>
          %
          <fpage>2930255</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>7</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vires</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Renewable Energy Will Not Solve Bitcoin's Sustainability Problem</article-title>
          . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.
          <year>2019</year>
          .
          <volume>02</volume>
          .007
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>