[user-the-name]

It can, and when it does, it destroys that energy, and forces other users to use polluting energy.

The environmental cost of Bitcoin is not that of the energy it uses, it is the cost of the dirtiest energy it forces others to use.

[fastball]

We should all be using nuclear anyway.

[user-the-name]

Even if we did, that is not non-polluting energy. Wasting it in massive amounts would still harm everyone.

[fastball]

Nuclear is definitely non-polluting energy.

[user-the-name]

Building the plant and mining the uranium, doing upkeep on the plant, and decommissioning it and processing the fuel are not non-polluting.

There is always pollution. Some forms of energy have more and some have less. It is never good to just waste energy, that will always cause excess pollution, no matter the type of energy used.

[fastball]

Ok, sure, but by that standard nuclear is by far the least polluting per watt.

[user-the-name]

Sure. But it still pollutes, and wasting the energy it produces is still harmful.

It doesn't matter how energy is produced, bitcoin will always be harmful.