Here’s the gist: Bitcoin consumes around 173 TWh per year (Cambridge CBECI, 2025), which is about 0.75% of the world's electricity. It’s legit and significant. The real conversation isn’t about how small the number is; it’s that this energy buys something valuable (security), the demand is super flexible, and the loudest critics typically fall into two groups: those who actually have solutions and those who don’t.
The comparison game is tricky. "More than Argentina," "less than your average dryer," "more than gold mining." Each of these statements is based on a chosen metric. Gold mining estimates vary between 132-265 TWh depending on how you look at it, which overlaps with Bitcoin's figure. So whether Bitcoin "uses more than gold" really depends on how you measure gold.
Energy is what provides security. Proof-of-work takes electricity and turns it into the cost of rewriting history. Cut down the energy, and you also lower the cost for attacks proportionally. That’s why saying "just make it use less" isn’t as simple as it seems.
What miners are actually paying for. A miner is the ONLY large-scale operation that can set up anywhere, can be shut down in seconds, and doesn’t care about when they’re getting power. They end up using stranded hydro, flared gas, curtailed wind: those are the cheapest power sources around because nobody else is using them.
The proof. In August 2023, during the ERCOT heat wave, Riot Platforms made $31.7 million mainly by reducing their consumption (selling power back + demand-response credits) compared to just $8.9 million from mining Bitcoin that month, cutting down over 95% of their power use in seconds. This info is filed with the SEC and is public.
What critics actually get right. The noise lawsuit in Granbury, TX is a real issue. Not all mining operations use stranded renewables; some power grids still rely on coal and gas. We should definitely consider the water and e-waste impact.
"Bitcoin uses too much energy" is a massive psyop. Energy is just like any other good in the market. Dictating what others can do with their energy is not different from dictating what they can buy or use in the lives and businesses.
Even if Bitcoin "wasted" 50% of the world's energy, it'd still be done voluntarily by the people who own and have bought their energy fair and square.
That myth has long been dispelled and was believed in only by those who don't really use their heads or those who have something against Bitcoin (personally or professionally). At the time when the attack on Bitcoin from this direction was the strongest, a lot was written about it and the conclusion was always that more than 50% of that energy comes from renewable sources, and that a good part of the energy used for BTC mining would be lost anyway.
At that time, the percentage of energy consumption was around 2% on an annual basis, and what remains in my memory is the fact that in the course of one year, as much as 50 000 TWh of energy is lost in the network and no one makes a fuss about it.
If we have millions of people who still believe that the earth is flat despite irrefutable evidence that it is not, then it should come as no surprise that there are probably hundreds of millions of people who still believe that they will be left in the dark because someone is mining Bitcoin.
Cambridge research relies on mining pools that were ready to cooperate with them and gave them data. It's not like a research and result which represent the Bitcoin mining industry accurately 100%.
Will many other industries and companies will have lawsuits because they don't use renewable resources for fuels, energy?
FUD about energy used for Bitcoin mining is not new, and it has existed in many years and such FUDs can be debunk.
https://endthefud.org/energy
https://bitcoincleanup.com/
https://casebitcoin.com/critiques/bitcoin-wastes-energy
I think we have long overcame this bitcoin energy consumption myth. I haven't heard about it in the recent times. What changed, why the topic again? Has it been resurrected again in the online space?
It was between 2021 to 2023 that the bitcoin energy concern was much, probably because of;
China banning bitcoin mining and miners relocating
and
Elon musk suspending bitcoin payment at Tesla
Besides, I don't think the world is that interested in bitcoin and its energy consumption. They have known the truth and attention has shifted to AI infrastructure which could even consume more than bitcoin.
Yes, the reason the critics keep shut is because we are now in the days of AI. AI use electricity more than bitcoin mining, but the critics have know this already. The government do not care as long as the AI centers are paying for the electricity.
Bitcoin mining is even better because people that have AI centers in their town are now complaining of increasing electricity cost because of AI centers.
Not only that the government do not care, they also cannot do anything to stop the AI revolution because they themselves also benefit from AI. This is unlike bitcoin which was initially seen as a wall street gangerism stunt.
No matter what energy AI centers consume, it will not raise uproar. Bitcoin is one of those technologies that faced unfavorable entrance into the society.
The one little secret those environmentalist who target bitcoin don't tell you is the fact that some of those energy used to mine bitcoin come from renewable energy, and some other come from excess or stranded energy that can't be distributed anywhere else and to save operating cost some energy company decide to mine bitcoin with their surplus energy.
The concern about energy relating to bitcoin is always nothing but a fud.
They always make a big deal about Bitcoin energy consumption, and pretend to care about the environment, but they ignore the massive projects; that pollute the environment, the events; that consume a lot of non-renewable energy just for competitions, and so many more I could mention. However, they seem to ignore the projects, or events; that are actually damaging the environment through pollution, and it will further deplete the energy available from non-renewable sources.
I think they are being two-faced, or maybe we can called them as "double standards", who unfairly criticizing Bitcoin. Whereas, they should know that Bitcoin is diverting its energy resources to renewable energy sources, or not always just using energy sources, that they fear will run out (or damage the environment). Cmiiw.
Bitcoin uses energy and it will always use energy but in a good way to give a secure network and allows everyone to have a safe payment system. Energy is not only used by Bitcoin miners but by everyone, any electronic device needs energy to work and so does Bitcoin mining and there's nothing wrong in it. The miners willingly give that energy to mine Bitcoin and they either pay for it or use renewable energy sources for that. It's their own choice and there's nothing wrong in it.
Yeah it's clearly a double standard from them. Now that Bitcoin is proven to use big chunk of renewable energy, they have nothing left to criticize whereas AI data center that use fossil energy and even going as far as causing instability in electricity price got no scrutiny from them.
They just hate Bitcoin not because it is harmful to environment which isn't true at all and clearly most of their statements are fud.
There are bigger things and more harmful things out there using too much electricity for nothing and Bitcoin still the one getting the dirt. The hypocrisy is unbearable and feels ingenuine.
The number to follow is imo the evolution of the percentage of renewable and nuclear energy, which currently is at 52 (CCAF)-56% (Daniel Batten) depending on the source. And above all, if available, statistics about "excess" or "stranded" renewable energy being used.
Nevertheless the rise looks a bit slow, I've already seen 50% renewable+nuclear estimations in 2023 or so.
If this article is correct, then what I predicted some years ago is becoming reality: Miners now have begun to significantly use excess energy from wind and solar to power their installations. Solar power makes up 12% and wind power 15% of the mining mix according to that source, so hydro (23%) has lost its strong dominance it had a few years ago.
I still however struggle to find more exact estimations for the "stranded" energy. According to Google's AI mode, 15 to 30% of mining power is probably already "intermittent" or "curtailed", i.e. the miners are not on 24/7 but only when enough renewable energy is present. This number can still rise as this is the cheapest kind of electricity and the installations are rapidly growing around the world. Of course there are still challenges for that model, it is only suitable to use with older ASICs as newer ones need to be "squeezed" and run 24/7 for some years to get the hardware costs back. However, a little catch is that the "curtailed" figure contains contracts like Riot's, where they switch off their miners on a few days in the year only in hours of peak consumption.