Environmentalists and other skeptics hold the Bitcoin blockchain in low regard because the proof-of-work (PoW) code that is used to settle transactions is frequently depicted as an energy hog that tramples on ecological values with its enormous carbon footprint.
The University of Cambridge has produced some of the studies that is most frequently cited to criticize Bitcoin’s power consumption. This research estimates that Bitcoin uses more than 121 terawatt-hours (TWh) of power annually, placing it among the top 30 electricity consumers worldwide. According to the Cambridge data, if Bitcoin were a nation, it would consume more energy than either Pakistan or the Netherlands combined.
According to the WorldCounts website, one terawatt is equivalent to 10 billion 100-watt lamps being powered simultaneously. Furthermore, leaders inside the cryptocurrency industry itself are among those who are criticizing Bitcoin, not simply theoretical academics.
In a prestigious media article published this month, Cardano cofounder Charles Hoskinson verbally pummeled Bitcoin’s energy consumption “Given that energy inefficiency is ingrained in Bitcoin’s DNA, its energy consumption has more than quadrupled since the start of its previous peak in 2017. The carbon footprint of bitcoin will increase exponentially as its price increases due to increased demand for the money, which increases energy consumption.”
Turning on the energy use of Bitcoin and the script
Even though Bitcoin is down 70% from its record price of $69,000 established in November 2021, it’s still simple to throw ecological bombs at the first and most expensive cryptocurrency. The environmental-focused rhetoric against Bitcoin, however, is called into question by a just-released peer-reviewed research report. After four years of study and data gathering, payment consulting company Valuechain released the 27-page white paper “Bitcoin: Cryptopaments Energy Efficiency.”The article claims that prior energy evaluations of Bitcoin, including the aforementioned study by the University of Cambridge, were erroneous, incomplete, and unfairly biased against cryptocurrencies. For instance, Valuechain attacked a central bank report titled “The Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin” explicitly for cherry-picking debit card use, a minor component of traditional banking, as the sole comparator versus Bitcoin’s complete ecosystem.
