Bitcoin Energy Input Measure
A Bitcoin Energy Input Measure is an energy input measure for a Bitcoin system.
- Example(s):
- ~87.1 annual TWh, in 2019-09-30.
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: NYSE Energy Input, PlayStation Network Energy Input.
References
2021
- https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
- QUOTE: ... To put the energy consumed by the Bitcoin network into perspective we can compare it to another payment system like VISA for example. According to VISA, the company consumed a total amount of 740,000 Gigajoules of energy (from various sources) globally for all its operations. This means that VISA has an energy need equal to that of around 19,304 U.S. households. We also know VISA processed 138.3 billion transactions in 2019. With the help of these numbers, it is possible to compare both networks and show that Bitcoin is extremely more energy intensive per transaction than VISA. The difference in carbon intensity per transaction is even greater (see footprints), as the energy used by VISA is relatively “greener” than the energy used by the Bitcoin mining network. The carbon footprint per VISA transaction is only 0.45 grams CO2eq. Of course, VISA isn’t perfectly representative for the global financial system. But even a comparison with the average non-cash transaction in the regular financial system still reveals that an average Bitcoin transaction requires several thousands of times more energy. One could argue that this is simply the price of a transaction that doesn’t require a trusted third party, but this price doesn’t have to be so high as will be discussed hereafter. ...
- The number of VISA transactions that could be powered by the energy consumed for a single Bitcoin transaction on average (698.28 kWh): 469,808
- QUOTE: ... To put the energy consumed by the Bitcoin network into perspective we can compare it to another payment system like VISA for example. According to VISA, the company consumed a total amount of 740,000 Gigajoules of energy (from various sources) globally for all its operations. This means that VISA has an energy need equal to that of around 19,304 U.S. households. We also know VISA processed 138.3 billion transactions in 2019. With the help of these numbers, it is possible to compare both networks and show that Bitcoin is extremely more energy intensive per transaction than VISA. The difference in carbon intensity per transaction is even greater (see footprints), as the energy used by VISA is relatively “greener” than the energy used by the Bitcoin mining network. The carbon footprint per VISA transaction is only 0.45 grams CO2eq. Of course, VISA isn’t perfectly representative for the global financial system. But even a comparison with the average non-cash transaction in the regular financial system still reveals that an average Bitcoin transaction requires several thousands of times more energy. One could argue that this is simply the price of a transaction that doesn’t require a trusted third party, but this price doesn’t have to be so high as will be discussed hereafter. ...
2020
- (de Vries, 2020) ⇒ Alex de Vries. (2020). “Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption is Underestimated: A Market Dynamics Approach.” Energy Research & Social Science 70
- ABSTRACT: As the resource intensity of running Bitcoin has increased over recent years, it has become a serious concern for its potential impact on health and climate. Within this context, there exists a growing need for accurate information. Various organizations need this for multiple purposes like properly assessing the urgency of the problem, implementing the right policy response in the right locations and for setting up mitigation programs.
We propose a market dynamics approach to evaluate the current methods for obtaining information on Bitcoin’s energy demand. This allows us to establish that, while historically the Bitcoin mining industry has been growing most of the time, this growth allows market participants to pursue strategies that don’t necessarily involve the best devices, device settings, or locations. The bigger the profitability of mining, the more it allows market participants to make decisions that result in suboptimal power efficiency of the Bitcoin network. Specifically, while the profitability of mining peaked during 2019, we find that market participants primarily used older generations of devices with better availability and lower acquisition costs. Common estimation approaches don’t only fail to capture this behavior, but also fail to properly capture the market circumstances, like seasonal and geographic variation in electricity prices, that help enable participants to do so in the first place. This combination leaves common approaches prone to providing optimistic estimates during growth cycles. We conservatively estimate the Bitcoin network to consume 87.1 TWh of electrical energy annually per September 30, 2019 (equaling a country like Belgium).
- ABSTRACT: As the resource intensity of running Bitcoin has increased over recent years, it has become a serious concern for its potential impact on health and climate. Within this context, there exists a growing need for accurate information. Various organizations need this for multiple purposes like properly assessing the urgency of the problem, implementing the right policy response in the right locations and for setting up mitigation programs.