'Green' cryptocurrency uses 18 times more energy than makers claim

A cryptocurrency designed as an environmentally friendly alternative to bitcoin is consuming 18 times more energy than its developers initially claimed. Chia Network, which uses a proof-of-space-and-time mechanism relying on empty hard disk space rather than bitcoin’s energy-intensive proof-of-work calculations, has been found to have a significantly larger carbon footprint than advertised. Independent research estimates Chia’s annual emissions to be between 0.584 and 1.402 million tonnes of CO2, far exceeding the company’s original claim of 50,000 tonnes. Chia’s mining process involves two stages: plotting, which is resource-heavy and wears out solid-state drives (SSDs), and farming, which stores the data on slower hard drives. The plotting phase requires substantial memory and processing power, leading to rapid hardware degradation and increased embodied carbon emissions from manufacturing replacement devices. Researchers highlighted that the environmental impact of producing and frequently replacing SSDs was not accounted for in Chia’s initial energy consumption estimates. This omission significantly underestimates the network’s true carbon footprint, making it considerably higher than that of other mainstream blockchains such as Ethereum. Experts acknowledge that while Chia’s approach is less energy-intensive than bitcoin’s, it still falls short of being a truly green solution. The study’s co-author noted that the need for frequent hardware replacement due to plotting tasks contributes heavily to emissions, undermining the cryptocurrency’s environmental claims. Chia Network’s CEO responded by emphasizing the use of repurposed hard drives from data centers for farming, which could mitigate some environmental impact, though this does not fully address the plotting-related emissions. The findings underscore the challenges cryptocurrencies face in balancing security and decentralization with environmental sustainability. As the industry seeks greener alternatives, accurate assessments of energy use and carbon emissions remain critical for understanding the true ecological cost of digital currencies.