Bitcoin’s ongoing meteoric price rise has received the bulk of recent press attention with a lot of discussion around whether or not it’s a bubble waiting to burst.
However, most the coverage has missed out one of the more interesting and unintended consequences of this price increase. That is the surge in global electricity consumption used to “mine” more Bitcoins.
According to Digiconomist’s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index, as of Monday November 20th, 2017 Bitcoin’s current estimated annual electricity consumption stands at 29.05TWh.
That’s the equivalent of 0.13% of total global electricity consumption. While that may not sound like a lot, it means Bitcoin mining is now using more electricity than 159 individual countries (as you can see from the map above). More than Ireland or Nigeria.
If Bitcoin miners were a country they’d rank 61st in the world in terms of electricity consumption.
Here are a few other interesting facts about Bitcoin mining and electricity consumption:
- In the past month alone, Bitcoin mining electricity consumption is estimated to have increased by 29.98%
- If it keeps increasing at this rate, Bitcoin mining will consume all the world’s electricity by February 2020.
- Estimated annualised global mining revenues: $7.2 billion USD (£5.4 billion)
- Estimated global mining costs: $1.5 billion USD (£1.1 billion)
- Number of Americans who could be powered by bitcoin mining: 2.4 million (more than the population of Houston)
- Number of Britons who could be powered by bitcoin mining: 6.1 million (more than the population of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Bradford, Liverpool, Bristol, Croydon, Coventry, Leicester & Nottingham combined) Or Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
- Bitcoin Mining consumes more electricity than 12 US states (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming)
All maps created using Mapchart.net. For the full breakdown of data, please keep reading.
Bitcoin Mining Electricity Consumption Vs Countries
The map at the top of the page shows, which countries currently consume more or less electricity than that consumed by global Bitcoin mining.
The map below shows how much more or less bitcoin mining energy consumption compares to each countries energy usage with 100% being equal.
E.g. Ireland currently consumes an estimated 25 TWh of electricity per year, so global Bitcoin mining consumption is 116%, or 16% more than they consume. The UK consumes an estimated 309 TWh of electricity per year so global Bitcoin mining consumption is only equivalent to 9.4% of the UK total.
The map below shows which countries in Europe consume more or less electricity than Bitcoin mining:
As mentioned, above the data for Bitcoin mining energy consumption comes from the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. You can read about their assumptions here.
Electricity consumption data mostly comes from the CIA via Wikipedia and is mostly for 2014, since that’s the most recent year available. Unlike some other sources it includes, residential, commercial and industrial use, so may be higher than other figures quoted elsewhere.
Below we have a table showing the data we used for each country:
| Rank | Country | Electricity Consumption in kWh/year | Bitcoin Mining Consumption Relative To Country's Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | China | 5,920,000,000,000.00 | 0.49% |
| 2 | United States | 3,913,000,000,000.00 | 0.74% |
| 3 | Russia | 1,065,000,000,000.00 | 2.73% |
| 4 | India | 1,001,191,000,000.00 | 2.90% |
| 5 | Japan | 934,000,000,000.00 | 3.11% |
| 6 | Germany | 533,000,000,000.00 | 5.45% |
| 7 | Canada | 528,000,000,000.00 | 5.50% |
| 8 | Brazil | 518,000,000,000.00 | 5.61% |
| 9 | Korea, South | 495,000,000,000.00 | 5.87% |
| 10 | France | 431,000,000,000.00 | 6.74% |
| 11 | United Kingdom | 309,000,000,000.00 | 9.40% |
| 12 | Italy | 291,000,000,000.00 | 9.98% |
| 13 | Saudi Arabia | 272,000,000,000.00 | 10.68% |
| 14 | Taiwan | 249,500,000,000.00 | 11.64% |
| 15 | Mexico | 238,000,000,000.00 | 12.21% |
| 16 | Spain | 234,000,000,000.00 | 12.41% |
| 17 | Australia | 224,000,000,000.00 | 12.97% |
| 18 | Iran | 218,000,000,000.00 | 13.33% |
| 19 | South Africa | 212,000,000,000.00 | 13.70% |
| 20 | Turkey | 207,000,000,000.00 | 14.03% |
| 21 | Indonesia | 195,000,000,000.00 | 14.90% |
| 22 | Thailand | 164,000,000,000.00 | 17.71% |
| 23 | Egypt | 143,000,000,000.00 | 20.31% |
| 24 | Ukraine | 143,000,000,000.00 | 20.31% |
| 25 | Poland | 142,000,000,000.00 | 20.46% |
| 26 | Malaysia | 131,000,000,000.00 | 22.18% |
| 27 | Sweden | 127,000,000,000.00 | 22.87% |
| 28 | Norway | 126,400,000,000.00 | 22.98% |
| 29 | Vietnam | 125,000,000,000.00 | 23.24% |
| 30 | Argentina | 116,000,000,000.00 | 25.04% |
| 31 | Netherlands | 108,000,000,000.00 | 26.90% |
| 32 | United Arab Emirates | 96,000,000,000.00 | 30.26% |
| 33 | Kazakhstan | 91,000,000,000.00 | 31.92% |
| 34 | Philippines | 90,797,891,000.00 | 31.99% |
| 35 | Pakistan | 82,000,000,000.00 | 35.43% |
| 36 | Finland | 81,000,000,000.00 | 35.86% |
| 37 | Belgium | 81,000,000,000.00 | 35.86% |
| 38 | Venezuela | 78,000,000,000.00 | 37.24% |
| 39 | Austria | 69,750,000,000.00 | 41.65% |
| 40 | Chile | 66,000,000,000.00 | 44.02% |
| 41 | Czech Republic | 60,000,000,000.00 | 48.42% |
| 42 | Colombia | 60,000,000,000.00 | 48.42% |
| 43 | Israel | 59,830,000,000.00 | 48.55% |
| 44 | Switzerland | 58,000,000,000.00 | 50.09% |
| 45 | Kuwait | 54,000,000,000.00 | 53.80% |
| 46 | Greece | 53,000,000,000.00 | 54.81% |
| 47 | Algeria | 49,000,000,000.00 | 59.29% |
| 48 | Romania | 48,000,000,000.00 | 60.52% |
| 49 | Uzbekistan | 48,000,000,000.00 | 60.52% |
| 50 | Singapore | 47,180,000,000.00 | 61.57% |
| 51 | Portugal | 46,000,000,000.00 | 63.15% |
| 52 | Bangladesh | 46,000,000,000.00 | 63.15% |
| 53 | Hong Kong | 42,000,000,000.00 | 69.17% |
| 54 | Iraq | 42,000,000,000.00 | 69.17% |
| 55 | New Zealand | 40,000,000,000.00 | 72.63% |
| 56 | Peru | 39,000,000,000.00 | 74.49% |
| 57 | Qatar | 34,000,000,000.00 | 85.44% |
| 58 | Belarus | 33,000,000,000.00 | 88.03% |
| 59 | Denmark | 32,000,000,000.00 | 90.78% |
| 60 | Bulgaria | 31,000,000,000.00 | 93.71% |
| 61 | Morocco | 29,000,000,000.00 | 100.17% |
| 62 | Slovakia | 28,360,000,000.00 | 102.43% |
| 63 | Serbia | 26,910,000,000.00 | 107.95% |
| 64 | Bahrain | 25,000,000,000.00 | 116.20% |
| 65 | Ireland | 25,000,000,000.00 | 116.20% |
| 66 | Oman | 25,000,000,000.00 | 116.20% |
| 67 | Nigeria | 24,000,000,000.00 | 121.04% |
| 68 | Hungary | 21,550,000,000.00 | 134.80% |
| 69 | Ecuador | 21,000,000,000.00 | 138.33% |
| 70 | Azerbaijan | 20,000,000,000.00 | 145.25% |
| 71 | Puerto Rico | 19,000,000,000.00 | 152.89% |
| 72 | Iceland | 17,000,000,000.00 | 170.88% |
| 73 | Syria | 17,000,000,000.00 | 170.88% |
| 74 | Croatia | 16,970,000,000.00 | 171.18% |
| 75 | Jordan | 16,000,000,000.00 | 181.56% |
| 76 | Lebanon | 16,000,000,000.00 | 181.56% |
| 77 | Dominican Republic | 15,140,000,000.00 | 191.88% |
| 78 | Tunisia | 15,000,000,000.00 | 193.67% |
| 79 | Cuba | 15,000,000,000.00 | 193.67% |
| 80 | Korea, North | 15,000,000,000.00 | 193.67% |
| 81 | Slovenia | 13,000,000,000.00 | 223.46% |
| 82 | Turkmenistan | 13,000,000,000.00 | 223.46% |
| 83 | Tajikistan | 12,000,000,000.00 | 242.08% |
| 84 | Mozambique | 12,000,000,000.00 | 242.08% |
| 85 | Kyrgyzstan | 11,000,000,000.00 | 264.09% |
| 86 | Sri Lanka | 11,000,000,000.00 | 264.09% |
| 87 | Zambia | 11,000,000,000.00 | 264.09% |
| 88 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 11,000,000,000.00 | 264.09% |
| 89 | Myanmar | 11,000,000,000.00 | 264.09% |
| 90 | Uruguay | 10,000,000,000.00 | 290.50% |
| 91 | Lithuania | 9,900,000,000.00 | 293.43% |
| 92 | Sudan | 9,900,000,000.00 | 293.43% |
| 93 | Georgia | 9,800,000,000.00 | 296.43% |
| 94 | Paraguay | 9,700,000,000.00 | 299.48% |
| 95 | Libya | 9,300,000,000.00 | 312.37% |
| 96 | Congo, Democratic Republic of the | 9,300,000,000.00 | 312.37% |
| 97 | Costa Rica | 9,200,000,000.00 | 315.76% |
| 98 | Ghana | 9,200,000,000.00 | 315.76% |
| 99 | Trinidad and Tobago | 9,100,000,000.00 | 319.23% |
| 100 | Guatemala | 8,915,000,000.00 | 325.86% |
| 101 | Estonia | 8,200,000,000.00 | 354.27% |
| 102 | Angola | 8,100,000,000.00 | 358.64% |
| 103 | Zimbabwe | 8,000,000,000.00 | 363.13% |
| 104 | Panama | 7,800,000,000.00 | 372.44% |
| 105 | Albania | 7,793,000,000.00 | 372.77% |
| 106 | Kenya | 7,600,000,000.00 | 382.24% |
| 107 | Bolivia | 7,500,000,000.00 | 387.33% |
| 108 | Macedonia | 6,960,000,000.00 | 417.39% |
| 109 | Latvia | 6,800,000,000.00 | 427.21% |
| 110 | Ethiopia | 6,700,000,000.00 | 433.58% |
| 111 | Luxembourg | 6,200,000,000.00 | 468.55% |
| 112 | Cameroon | 6,100,000,000.00 | 476.23% |
| 113 | Ivory Coast | 5,800,000,000.00 | 500.86% |
| 114 | El Salvador | 5,700,000,000.00 | 509.65% |
| 115 | Mongolia | 5,600,000,000.00 | 518.75% |
| 116 | Honduras | 5,300,000,000.00 | 548.11% |
| 117 | West Bank | 5,200,000,000.00 | 558.65% |
| 118 | Yemen | 5,200,000,000.00 | 558.65% |
| 119 | Armenia | 5,100,000,000.00 | 569.61% |
| 120 | Tanzania | 5,000,000,000.00 | 581.00% |
| 121 | Afghanistan | 4,700,000,000.00 | 618.09% |
| 122 | Macau | 4,500,000,000.00 | 645.56% |
| 123 | Nicaragua | 4,412,000,000.00 | 658.43% |
| 124 | Moldova | 4,305,000,000.00 | 674.80% |
| 125 | Cambodia | 4,100,000,000.00 | 708.54% |
| 126 | Laos | 3,900,000,000.00 | 744.87% |
| 127 | Nepal | 3,900,000,000.00 | 744.87% |
| 128 | Cyprus | 3,900,000,000.00 | 744.87% |
| 129 | Brunei | 3,766,000,000.00 | 771.38% |
| 130 | Botswana | 3,700,000,000.00 | 785.14% |
| 131 | Namibia | 3,700,000,000.00 | 785.14% |
| 132 | Papua New Guinea | 3,000,000,000.00 | 968.33% |
| 133 | Senegal | 3,000,000,000.00 | 968.33% |
| 134 | Kosovo | 2,887,000,000.00 | 1006.23% |
| 135 | Montenegro | 2,800,000,000.00 | 1037.50% |
| 136 | Jamaica | 2,800,000,000.00 | 1037.50% |
| 137 | Uganda | 2,700,000,000.00 | 1075.93% |
| 138 | Mauritius | 2,600,000,000.00 | 1117.31% |
| 139 | Gabon | 2,100,000,000.00 | 1383.33% |
| 140 | Bhutan | 2,085,000,000.00 | 1393.29% |
| 141 | New Caledonia | 2,000,000,000.00 | 1452.50% |
| 142 | Malta | 2,000,000,000.00 | 1452.50% |
| 143 | Suriname | 1,900,000,000.00 | 1528.95% |
| 144 | Malawi | 1,900,000,000.00 | 1528.95% |
| 145 | Bahamas | 1,600,000,000.00 | 1815.63% |
| 146 | Guam | 1,500,000,000.00 | 1936.67% |
| 147 | Swaziland | 1,500,000,000.00 | 1936.67% |
| 148 | Mali | 1,400,000,000.00 | 2075.00% |
| 149 | Liechtenstein | 1,360,000,000.00 | 2136.03% |
| 150 | Madagascar | 1,300,000,000.00 | 2234.62% |
| 151 | Burkina Faso | 1,200,000,000.00 | 2420.83% |
| 152 | Niger | 1,200,000,000.00 | 2420.83% |
| 153 | Togo | 1,100,000,000.00 | 2640.91% |
| 154 | Benin | 1,000,000,000.00 | 2905.00% |
| 155 | Curacao | 968,000,000.00 | 3001.03% |
| 156 | Congo, Republic of the | 900,000,000.00 | 3227.78% |
| 157 | Guinea | 900,000,000.00 | 3227.78% |
| 158 | Barbados | 900,000,000.00 | 3227.78% |
| 159 | Mauritania | 800,000,000.00 | 3631.25% |
| 160 | Lesotho | 800,000,000.00 | 3631.25% |
| 161 | Guyana | 800,000,000.00 | 3631.25% |
| 162 | Fiji | 800,000,000.00 | 3631.25% |
| 163 | Aruba | 800,000,000.00 | 3631.25% |
| 164 | French Polynesia | 700,000,000.00 | 4150.00% |
| 165 | South Sudan | 694,100,000.00 | 4185.28% |
| 166 | Jersey | 630,100,000.00 | 4610.38% |
| 167 | Bermuda | 600,000,000.00 | 4841.67% |
| 168 | Cayman Islands | 600,000,000.00 | 4841.67% |
| 169 | U.S. Virgin Islands | 600,000,000.00 | 4841.67% |
| 170 | Marshall Islands | 600,000,000.00 | 4841.67% |
| 171 | Andorra | 562,400,000.00 | 5165.36% |
| 172 | Rwanda | 500,000,000.00 | 5810.00% |
| 173 | Burundi | 400,000,000.00 | 7262.50% |
| 174 | Belize | 400,000,000.00 | 7262.50% |
| 175 | Djibouti | 400,000,000.00 | 7262.50% |
| 176 | Haiti | 400,000,000.00 | 7262.50% |
| 177 | Seychelles | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 178 | Somalia | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 179 | Saint Lucia | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 180 | Antigua and Barbuda | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 181 | Cabo Verde | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 182 | Eritrea | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 183 | Faroe Islands | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 184 | Gambia | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 185 | Greenland | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 186 | Liberia | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 187 | Maldives | 300,000,000.00 | 9683.33% |
| 188 | Chad | 200,000,000.00 | 14525.00% |
| 189 | Saint Kitts and Nevis | 200,000,000.00 | 14525.00% |
| 190 | Central African Republic | 200,000,000.00 | 14525.00% |
| 191 | Sierra Leone | 200,000,000.00 | 14525.00% |
| 192 | Turks and Caicos Islands | 200,000,000.00 | 14525.00% |
| 193 | Gibraltar | 200,000,000.00 | 14525.00% |
| 194 | Grenada | 200,000,000.00 | 14525.00% |
| 195 | Micronesia, Federated States of | 178,600,000.00 | 16265.40% |
| 196 | Timor-Leste | 125,300,000.00 | 23184.36% |
| 197 | British Virgin Islands | 100,000,000.00 | 29050.00% |
| 198 | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 100,000,000.00 | 29050.00% |
| 199 | American Samoa | 100,000,000.00 | 29050.00% |
| 200 | Samoa | 100,000,000.00 | 29050.00% |
| 201 | Equatorial Guinea | 91,140,000.00 | 31874.04% |
| 202 | Dominica | 90,210,000.00 | 32202.64% |
| 203 | Western Sahara | 83,700,000.00 | 34707.29% |
| 204 | Solomon Islands | 79,050,000.00 | 36748.89% |
| 205 | Sao Tome and Principe | 65,100,000.00 | 44623.66% |
| 206 | Vanuatu | 55,800,000.00 | 52060.93% |
| 207 | Tonga | 46,500,000.00 | 62473.12% |
| 208 | Saint Pierre and Miquelon | 41,850,000.00 | 69414.58% |
| 209 | Comoros | 40,920,000.00 | 70992.18% |
| 210 | Guinea-Bissau | 31,620,000.00 | 91872.23% |
| 211 | Cook Islands | 31,620,000.00 | 91872.23% |
| 212 | Kiribati | 27,900,000.00 | 104121.86% |
| 213 | Nauru | 23,250,000.00 | 124946.24% |
| 214 | Montserrat | 21,390,000.00 | 135811.13% |
| 215 | Falkland Islands | 13,950,000.00 | 208243.73% |
| 216 | Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha | 9,300,000.00 | 312365.59% |
| 217 | Niue | 3,720,000.00 | 780913.98% |
| 218 | Gaza Strip | 202,000.00 | 14381188.12% |
| 219 | Northern Mariana Islands | 48,300.00 | 60144927.54% |
Bitcoin Mining Electricity Consumption Vs US States
While doing the research we also though it might be interesting to compare Bitcoin mining energy consumption to US states. So we created the map below:
Overall, 12 States consume less electricity than Bitcoin Mining (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming).
The data for this section comes from the EIA and is for 2015 and uses total retail sales. Please note this data set uses MWh instead of kWh.
| State | Total retail sales (MWh) | Bitcoin Mining Consumption Relative To State's Use |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 88,845,543.00 | 33% |
| Alaska | 6,159,204.00 | 472% |
| Arizona | 77,349,416.00 | 38% |
| Arkansas | 46,465,154.00 | 63% |
| California | 261,170,437.00 | 11% |
| Colorado | 54,116,046.00 | 54% |
| Connecticut | 29,476,155.00 | 99% |
| Delaware | 11,498,205.00 | 253% |
| District of Columbia | 11,291,233.00 | 257% |
| Florida | 235,599,398.00 | 12% |
| Georgia | 135,878,215.00 | 21% |
| Hawaii | 9,511,352.00 | 305% |
| Idaho | 23,058,814.00 | 126% |
| Illinois | 138,619,970.00 | 21% |
| Indiana | 104,514,518.00 | 28% |
| Iowa | 47,147,293.00 | 62% |
| Kansas | 39,849,127.00 | 73% |
| Kentucky | 76,038,630.00 | 38% |
| Louisiana | 91,676,489.00 | 32% |
| Maine | 11,888,168.00 | 244% |
| Maryland | 61,781,719.00 | 47% |
| Massachusetts | 54,621,088.00 | 53% |
| Michigan | 102,479,921.00 | 28% |
| Minnesota | 66,579,234.00 | 44% |
| Mississippi | 48,691,529.00 | 60% |
| Missouri | 81,504,081.00 | 36% |
| Montana | 14,206,911.00 | 204% |
| Nebraska | 29,495,073.00 | 98% |
| Nevada | 36,019,690.00 | 81% |
| New Hampshire | 10,999,149.00 | 264% |
| New Jersey | 75,489,623.00 | 38% |
| New Mexico | 23,093,553.00 | 126% |
| New York | 148,913,655.00 | 20% |
| North Carolina | 133,847,523.00 | 22% |
| North Dakota | 18,128,948.00 | 160% |
| Ohio | 149,213,224.00 | 19% |
| Oklahoma | 61,336,385.00 | 47% |
| Oregon | 47,263,974.00 | 61% |
| Pennsylvania | 146,344,028.00 | 20% |
| Rhode Island | 7,664,718.00 | 379% |
| South Carolina | 81,328,246.00 | 36% |
| South Dakota | 12,101,979.00 | 240% |
| Tennessee | 99,632,108.00 | 29% |
| Texas | 392,337,354.00 | 7% |
| Utah | 30,192,350.00 | 96% |
| Vermont | 5,521,109.00 | 526% |
| Virginia | 112,009,045.00 | 26% |
| Washington | 90,116,086.00 | 32% |
| West Virginia | 32,303,026.00 | 90% |
| Wisconsin | 68,698,932.00 | 42% |
| Wyoming | 16,924,762.00 | 172% |
Growth of Bitcoin Mining Electricity Consumption
While Bitcoin Mining is only currently consuming 0.13% of the world’s electricity output, it’s growing incredibly quickly.
The Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index estimates consumption has increased by 29.98% over the past month. If that growth rate were to continue, and countries did not add any new power generating capacity, Bitcoin mining would:
- Be greater than UK electricity consumption by October 2018 (309 TWh)
- Be greater than US electricity consumption by July 2019 (3,913 TWh)
- Consume all the world’s electricity by February 2020. (21,776 TWh)
The Cost of Mining Bitcoins
The Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index estimates that the total annual cost of mining Bitcoins stands at $1.5 billion (£1.1 billion).
However, that assumes Bitcoin mining is occurring in places with cheap electricity (not an unreasonable assumption).
The US average retail price per kilowatthour is 10.41 cents, which means using 28.05 TWh would cost: $3.02 billion (£2.28 billion).
In the UK it would even more expensive, assuming you paid the rock bottom price of 10.10 pence per kilowatthour (Bulb’s prices for London homes) it would still cost £2.93 billion ($3.89 billion).
Interestingly, Bitcoin’s price increase over the last month has been just over 40%, which is greater than the increase in electricity consumption.
This means the estimated annualised global mining revenues now stand at $7.2 billion USD (£5.4 billion), which even at the more expensive estimates listed above, means it’s still very profitable.
How Does Bitcoin Mining Consume Electricity?
At a very basic level Bitcoin mining requires expensive and power hungry computer hardware. As the the IEEE explains:
Mining power is high and getting higher, thanks to a computational arms race. Recall that the required number of zeros at the beginning of a hash is tweaked biweekly to adjust the difficulty of creating a block—and more zeros means more difficulty.
The Bitcoin algorithm adds these zeros in order to keep the rate at which blocks are added constant, at one new block every 10 minutes. The idea is to compensate for the mining hardware becoming more and more powerful.
When the hashing is harder, it takes more computations to create a block and thus more effort to earn new bitcoins, which are then added to circulation.
To better understand how this whole process works have a look at Investopedia’s guide.
Also see:
Also see:
- Top 11 Ofgem Approved Energy Price Comparison Sites: Which Is Best?
- Compare Business Electricity Prices
- Compare Business Gas Prices
- Compare Gas & Electricity Prices: Cheapest Dual Fuel Tariffs In 2019
- Compare 2019 Electricity Prices: Average UK Rates & Tariffs Per kWh
Find this post interesting? Please help us by sharing it with that friend who can’t stop talking about Bitcoin.
Lancel says
22/11/2017 at 7:41 pmCan anyone estimate how much carbon is being released into the atmosphere as a result of this electricity usage? I wonder how this would compare to the emissions required to mine an equally valuable amount of a precious metal like gold.
Chris says
29/11/2017 at 8:34 am2.5b tonnes of coal are burned each year to sustain just the top 10 (15.338 trillion kwH/year) countries.
HellzXAngel Phoenix grey queens of Cyrillic says
10/12/2017 at 7:21 amYes I have stopped producing it properly as it’s not longer safe and is being farmed for other worlds to allow input era to wipe out most of mankind am the original fist blood provided of self provided nd unlimited sustabeavle energy provider also the directors of the worlds network 02 and EE signed in blood
Marc Bevand says
22/11/2017 at 7:55 pmYour source for the power consumption (29.05 TWh/yr) overestimates by ~2×; Digiconomist is flawed: http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci/
I’ve conducted more precise research which was published in Bitcoin Magazine (bounds it to 5.61-10.93 TWh/year as of 28 Jul 2017): http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/
TruthSeeker says
23/11/2017 at 5:47 pmWhile I agree with the sentiment of this article it really does a disservice to data scientists everywhere as it really doesn’t portray a clear and full picture at all.
To do so, you would have to also look at energy consumption of Bitcoin competitors such as banks, credit unions, etc and run a comparison of the two.
To construct a good argument you need to present both sides of it and then counter the opposing side. A one sided argument is never an efficient argument, it’s just an opinion piece which we really don’t need more of.
While I appreciate the sentiment and your bringing to light the downside of Bitcoin, please work to present a better argument next time.
Jeff Berkowitz says
25/11/2017 at 5:25 pmBut we can do that comparison right off the top of our heads. The Bitcoin blockchain does one block about every 10 minutes, or about 6 blocks per hour. Each block contains about 1,500 transactions, or about 7,500 transactions per hour. For simplicity, let’s call it 10,000 transactions per hour. That’s 240,000 transactions per day. Let’s be generous (again) and round up to 300,000 transactions / day, which is a number commonly seen. Let’s also include the complaints in the comment above (e.g. http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/ and http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/) and grant that the real number might only be 20% of the numbers quoted in the original article. Now, how many financial transactions do you execute each day? Counting everything – buying lunch, buying gas, public transit tickets, parking, all your shopping, all your periodic bills, everything? For me it’s maybe 3 – 6 per day. So the entire worldwide Bitcoin system is only doing enough transactions to support a town of maybe 100,000 people. And do that it’s using more electricity than some of the world’s nations, even with the adjustments above. I know this is weird and hard to accept, but it seems to be true. Come on, the whole system can barely support the transaction rate one medium sized town! From this we can conclude that other transaction system must be at least millions of times more energy efficient, or there wouldn’t be enough electricity on Earth to support them.
Khazarian Agent says
10/12/2017 at 9:01 pmYou are right, comrades from NSA or DARPA (pretend to be “Nakamoto”) somewhere in the middle of Bitcoin concept executed flaw
Question: How many people on The Planet Earth do You know, who forgot to take prize 15 billion dollar? As “Nakamoto” has 1 million Bitcoins in blockchain.
Gio says
26/11/2017 at 5:22 pmHello.
So, basically you are saying that if the trend continues, banks and other institutions will also consume 100% of world energy production by 2020 or sooner. If that is true, we are doomed because we now have at least two financial branches which are going to suck all the energy by 2020 (actually much sooner if we add them both together). Hummmm…..
OK, that aside. Who said that this was a comparative analyses of Bitcoin and its competitors? You make too many assumtions, IMO. The writer simply added this analyses. To have a whole picture you need to start from the dots and lines. Maybe you could go on an do the next bit?
ptrc says
23/11/2017 at 8:41 pmThis comparison is amaizing and proofs that mining is serious bussines.
beesbeesbees says
24/11/2017 at 12:31 amThis is just clickbait. Bitcoin mining also maintains a network that currently is worth greater than $135 BILLION dollars. Compare that to the GDP of these same countries on this list: https://merchantmachine.co.uk/countries-gdp-bitcoin/
It’s uncanny how similar those two maps are. Could it be that the cost for maintaining that $135 billion in value costs more than the electricity used for the entire economy of a country that has nowhere near that kind of GDP?? Also the comparison here is comparing GLOBAL usage against individual countries…. gimme a break. This gives no indication as to the efficiency of the mining nor to the individual economies. It’s just incendiary emotional comparisons.
I wonder if anyone has costed out what the entire banking industry uses for electricity. All those buildings and suits sitting behind desks with computers isn’t free.
Guy Lane says
24/11/2017 at 6:23 amIn December, 2013, I first raised the alarm about Bitcoin’s carbon and electricity footprint. You can see the news story here:
https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/sbo/2013/12/bitcoins-carbon-footprint-a-clear.html
And my 3,000 word report, here:
http://seao2.com/bitcarbon/
At the time, I was derided as the ‘Bitcoin Idiot’. Now, it seems my numbers have been proved up.
In my report, I state that if Bitcoin gets to $1MM it will be responsible for 30% of the world’s carbon emissions.
Given that to avoid the worst of climate change, we need to be halving emissions every decade, and doubling renewables every five years, having this Frankenstein technology stalking the planet is very bad news indeed.
Guy Lane
Chesatochi says
26/11/2017 at 12:28 pmWe can clearly see the trend of power consumption over mining Bitcoin. In the end, this is one of the reasons that Bitcoin has so much value and continue to increase at the speed of light.
Rafael Soares says
26/11/2017 at 10:42 pmBecause of these high energy demands there are some alternatives in which the mining process relies on stored data (in your hard drive disk) instead of real-time computations. By doing this, the energy demand is minimal. The only coin already doing this is Burstcoin.
The concept is known as Proof of Capacity (PoC), while Bitcoin relies on Proof of Work (PoW).
DeRavenSey says
18/03/2018 at 11:15 pmI can drive my car 100 miles in any direction (and consume energy) and my odometer reading is “proof of work”. I’m 100 miles from where I was, but what did I actually accomplish?
Jai says
27/11/2017 at 2:11 pmThis is true for the time being perhaps. Bitcoin is a new technology that has some sustainability issues to contend with sure. But, if more people encouraged the solutions rather than only pointed out the problems, we would have quicker evolution to maturity. The solution is solar/wind renewable energy sources! Very simple and yet profound! We need to be able to assist miners into shifting into this solution!! Please spread the word to any of your miner friends. I know a few who are solely running their mining operations on solar/wind. So perfect!!! More innovation please!!
Özer Tayiz says
27/11/2017 at 8:40 pmI wonder how much USD is costing the world, if you include things like
*All the energy and human costs of all the USD bank transactions.
*All the wars to be waged to simply enforce petrodollar deal in middle east.
wim says
23/12/2017 at 12:34 pmcreative thinking…
openreels says
29/11/2017 at 4:28 amI’m totally new to these concepts and find it all quite bizarre–like some kind of sci-fi tale. So the Bitcoin network consists of immense processor farms whose sole purpose is to generate new blocks of transaction data, for which they receive some number of bitcoins as payment. And some people *want* to spend the huge sums of money (with attendant energy usage) to set up mining operations to get those bitcoins because they are worth… intrinsically nothing.
Every article about Bitcoin equates their “value” to US dollars or some other traditional currency. If the ability to trade bitcoin for other money, or for products or services, collapses all those processor farms are performing worthless calculations. Is this really a self-sustaining economy?
Meanwhile, the fiendish design of the blockchain concept–requiring all this computational work to maintain the system–and the crazy amounts of energy needed to perform the calculations, makes it sound even more like some kind of creepy sci-fi story! Like an evil character tricks a whole population into ruining their own world by creating factories that do nothing but use energy and generate heat.
Seriously, I had NO idea this was going on.
jpw says
16/01/2018 at 10:59 pmThis is pure gold. Thank you openreels for summarizing the absurdity of bitcoin / block-chain in a simple, elegant manner.
datenrettung says
04/12/2017 at 10:24 amHow about POC (Proof of capacity ) mining like Burstcoin mining ? Its “green mining”
Michael says
04/12/2017 at 6:50 pmInteresting discussion with valid points in the article and subsequent comments.
Makes me wonder how much increasing energy is being consumed worldwide (carbon footprint) for gaming and porn.
Gamers and porn addicts probably blow crypto-mining away in TWh used.
Bob says
20/12/2017 at 12:21 pmNo gamer has a dozen machines all hammering away at 100% load while they do nothing with it. Bitcoin mining is essentially a exercise in waste creation. The allocation of some sort of fiscal ‘worth’ to the result only makes it even more grotesque in its greed. Using resources up to produce nothing of value is the exact opposite of progress.
Greg says
07/12/2017 at 8:17 am” In the past month alone, Bitcoin mining electricity consumption is estimated to have increased by 29.98%. ”
” If it keeps increasing at this rate, Bitcoin mining will consume all the world’s electricity by February 2020. ”
Given that the first sentence above is a fact. However, the second sentence is not a fact as it is based on an assumption that is mathematically flawed. Even if bitcoin mining electricity consumption continues to grow exponentially, this does not necessarily translate into a constant 29.98% monthly increase.
This is due to the fact that as any number trending upwards continues to increase, it takes a much larger constant growth to continue to equal the percentage growth of the previous month. For example, assuming constant growth of 2 per month, if 10 grows to 12 in one month, that equals a 20% growth rate for that month – (2 / 10 = 20%). If 12 grows to 14 the next month, the growth rate declines from 20% to 16.7% – (2 / 12 = 16.7%). And if 14 grows to 16 the next month, the growth rate declines further from 16.7% to 14.3% – (2 / 14 = 14.3%). Furthermore, it 16 grows to 18 the next month, the growth rate declines to 12.5% – (2 / 16 = 12.5%). Finally, if 30 grows to 32 at the end of the 12th month, the growth rate declines to only 6.7% – (2 / 30 = 6.7%). Yet the growth is constant at 2 per month.
In conclusion, there is plenty of room for Bitcoin mining energy consumption to grow without it reaching a constant 29.98% growth rate per month – which is based on nothing but a hypothetical. The energy consumption could grow exponentially and incredibly over the next few years and still fall short of the 29.98% monthly increase solely due to the inherent mathematical decrease in percentage growth rates over a given period of time.
Mungo Cotton says
18/12/2017 at 5:28 pmInsert “thank you” gif.
Tom Miller says
13/12/2017 at 4:26 amThe ground rules for understanding the “Bitcoin” function need to be set, especially where confusion exists concerning the “Bitcoin mining” function that is described as if it is the same as actually digging a mineral out of the ground. It isn’t!
Money, in whatever way you seek to describe it, is an abstract notion. That abstract notion does not burn up energy, it is not a material thing and it is of no benefit in sustaining life, except as an exchange or transaction token for other things that are real and may sustain life—you can’t eat money but an apple may save you from hunger!
It’s all to do with how we use all sorts of ideas to “reify” material things. I find this subject difficult, but I remember when personal computers first arrived, they set out information storage in the analogy of a traditional hierarchic filing system—probably as the most efficient way of introducing computers in a way people could understand However those depictions of folders as icons are not really, ‘real’ folders (and data systems will continue to evolve in how we store and retrieve information, so that the old analogies will, no doubt, be replaced).
The Bitcoin certainly poses conceptual challenges but these things develop under the pressures social circumstances generate—and the phenomenon as an alternative to the current way we do business seems to have “anarchistic” redolences.
We are all creatures of exchange, both physically and spiritually and we might consider nascent ideas about commerce:
“Montesquieu describes commerce as an activity that cannot be confined or controlled by any individual government or monarch. This, in his view, has always been true: “Commerce is sometimes destroyed by conquerors, sometimes cramped by monarchs; it traverses the earth, flies from the places where it is oppressed, and stays where it has liberty to breathe” (SL 21.5). However, the independence of commerce was greatly enhanced when, during the medieval period, Jews responded to persecution and the seizure of their property by inventing letters of exchange. “Commerce, by this method, became capable of eluding violence, and of maintaining everywhere its ground; the richest merchant having none but invisible effects, which he could convey imperceptibly wherever he pleased” (SL 21.20). This set in motion developments which made commerce still more independent of monarchs and their whims.”
[ Bok, Hilary, “Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . ]
Salvador Carrasco says
14/12/2017 at 6:58 pmThe internet has also encountered many obstacles.
All were solved.
With Bitcoin it will not be any different.
Do you want a problem to be solved?
Let it be Bitcoin’s problem.
If the lack of energy becomes a problem, the Bitcoin network will invest in renewable sources.
The Bitcoin network will find a way to make power generation more efficient.
The Bitcoin network will find a way to make electric power free if needed.
Let Bitcoin solve the problem.
Then we will adopt the solution.
Two birds with one stone.
BULLSHIT says
01/01/2018 at 1:00 pmBULLSHIT
willow says
08/01/2018 at 1:34 amrubbish article that twists statistics and presents a one sided view to serve a narrative! I wonder how much power the internet uses.. Perhaps we should look into turning that off too!
linda says
24/01/2018 at 3:21 pmHallo! Currently I am doing a presentation about bitcoin for school. Is it possible if I use your graphics ( given the allegeable source ) in it?
thank you!
linda
admin says
25/01/2018 at 10:03 amYes, no problem happy for anyone to use the images so long as they provide a linked attribution back if it’s published online or credited attribution if used for other purposes. Good luck on your presentation.
Kwaku Antwi says
26/02/2018 at 11:05 amBitcoin mining will consume all the world’s electricity by February 2020. – I find this extremely hard to believe although I’ve enjoyed reading the article some of the facts may be slightly – just slightly 🙂 exaggerated.
btcminer says
23/06/2018 at 9:18 amBitcoin will destroy all Banks … final goal will be reached … no more energy left for them! Keep mining!
Adrian says
11/03/2018 at 9:17 pmWhat a ridiculous statement
” let it be bitcoins problem”
Energy is a global problem it has been for years we have been constantly developing products to reduce or use of electricity but still enhance our lifestyle from tvs moved from crt to plasma to led and bit coin goes the opposite waste as much energy as possible to earn coins seems a backward thought and for what an alternative to what we have already .
Last week i earnt my wages in cash (£) i went away paid hotel ,meals out ,cinema , shopping , a taxi ,drinks at a bar and car parking all with cash / card yes these were all relatively small amounts but i can easily transfer larger amounts . all im trying to say is i cope relitively well without bitcoin and apart from a those who have a invested in it and need it desperately to climb surely most of us can see its not needed …
Sam Tandorf says
08/11/2018 at 12:35 amIt would be nice to see a map for the European Union. I see You have listed some individual Eu states as “countries” but not the entire country like you did with the U.S.