In my opinion, bitcoin is one of these assets. If you want to invest in crypto, find better alternatives.
The growth of Bitcoin mining in America is due to miners partnering with oil and natural gas producers to use the energy that would be otherwise wasted. Instead of excess natural gas being flared, it's being used to run Bitcoin miners [1].
Everyone should read Lyn Alden's "7 Misconceptions About Bitcoin" [2], where she addresses the energy use; here's an excerpt:
Furthermore, a significant portion of the energy that Bitcoin uses could otherwise be wasted. Bitcoin miners seek out the absolute cheapest sources of electricity in the world, which usually means energy that was developed for one reason or another, but that doesn’t currently have sufficient demand, and would therefore be wasted.
Examples of this include over-built hydroelectric dams in certain regions of China, or stranded oil and gas wells in North America. Bitcoin mining equipment is mobile, and thus can be put near wherever the cheapest source of energy is, to arbitrage it and give a purpose to that stranded energy production.
Bitcoin mining converts the output from those cheap stranded sources of energy into something that currently has monetary value.
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/energy-giant-equinor-to-cut-gas-fla...
Carbon footprint of 1 transaction: Equivalent to the carbon footprint of 731,647 VISA transactions or 55,019 hours of watching Youtube.
Those articles are nice and all, but don't reflect more than opinion. The hard facts are that BTC is wasteful in terms of energy consumption.
>Examples of this include over-built hydroelectric dams in certain regions of China, or stranded oil and gas wells in North America. Bitcoin mining equipment is mobile, and thus can be put near wherever the cheapest source of energy is, to arbitrage it and give a purpose to that stranded energy production.
Way to romanticise the issue; again, here are the actual % that make up electricity production in china: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China It isn't excess hydro power being used, its coal.
Electricity is the main cost of mining, so miners compete in minimizing their electricity costs in order to maintain profitability, including by co-locating mining facilities with point sources of underutilized power (e.g. remote dams). The sources like this, hydroelectric and natural gas flares, the profitable mining electricity rate is regularly competed below the fuel cost of e.g. coal power. So anyone buying coal to mine Bitcoin is losing rather than making money.
E.g. in this example it’s currently hovering around the cost of natural gas: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertanzalone/2020/08/13/bitco...
> As both the cryptocurrency markets and the power markets are constantly fluctuating, we do whichever is more profitable at any given time - either sell the generated power or mine crypto with that power.
How can you call that the incorrect assumption? It sounds like you are making the incorrect assumption, based off of some idealistic idea of how this could work.
The article you linked even states that that specific project is unique, i.e. a one off thing, not the general state of things.
That's not going to happen. The core reason Bitcoin is the hardest money that's ever existed is because of proof of work. Part of why Bitcoin has monetary value is due to the energy used to produce Bitcoin and to secure the blockchain.
Eth 2.0 is unproven so far; it certainly wouldn't be trusted as a global reserve asset in its current form.
Pure proof of stake is fantasy. That's not "Bitcoin" and it never will be.
My personal hope would be that mixed proof of work and stake with on-chain governance, like Decred (their devs have built much of the Lightning Network tooling, performed the first cross-chain atomic swap, etc.) - could be adopted; but, realistically, I think that's also a fantasy.