According to statistics from Digiconomist which attempt to make the effects of Bitcoin more transparent, approximately 300,000 transactions execute every day, and each of those transactions consumes more than 200 kWh. That is enough to power more than 6 Million households a day!

Digiconomist's figures are pretty straightforward. At 200 kWh per bitcoin transaction, a Tesla Model S equipped with the standard 60 kWh battery pack could use that same energy to drive an impressive 1000 km (621.371 miles).

The entire computer network infrastructure that deals with bitcoins consume nearly as much energy as Ecuador and more than Iceland. That's roughly one-thousandth of the global electricity consumption in the world spent on Bitcoins. For comparison, a basic Google search costs 0.0004 kWh. According to a blog by Teunis Brosens, an ING economist, a payment with Visa costs 0.01 kWh.

BUILT-IN INEFFINCIENCY

The bitcoin takes so much energy because of the algorithm that has to run to get a coin.

"The algorithm that ensures bitcoin is reliable is also very inefficient; therefore it must be very robust. This requires that many people all implement the algorithm, and thus consume energy," explains Alex De Vries, consultant and founder of Digiconomist. 'The energy consumption is embedded in Bitcoins 'proof-of-work algorithm.' Also, the steep price increase of Bitcoin plays a significant role.'

The energy demand of bitcoin has grown steadily in recent times, partly because the currency is experiencing explosive growth. In March 2017, a bitcoin was worth less than a thousand dollars; now at the time of this post, it is ticking around ten thousand dollars. Ensuring that more and more people want to get hold of this bitcoin, therefore ever increasing energy costs. As ING Brosens puts it:

'It is very intriguing, this currency works without having to deal with banks or governments, but that system has a price, and it turns out to be considerable.'

ESTIMATE

Digiconomist's figures are an estimate. It is impossible to clearly define the amount of power the network uses because it involves thousands of computers and data centers. Alex de Vries, the founder of Digiconomist, makes his estimate based on the turnover of the miners and the probable price of energy.

'We know that an estimated 60 percent of minors' turnover due to energy costs. Other expenses, such as personnel or equipment, are not covered so you can assume that it is mainly energy. We then assumed a conservative estimate of the electricity price of around five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). By subsequently dividing sixty percent of the turnover of all miners by the kWh price, you end up using the consumption. '

CAN IT BE DIFFERENT?

De Vries sees the energy demand of Bitcoin not dropping for the time being.

'Even measurements built into the system, such as the periodic halving of the reward for mines, are not effective if the currency more than doubles in value.' A possible solution, according to de Vries, is to adjust the algorithm. 'There is a new method to implement the' random draw,' which determines who can process transactions and get bitcoins. Not via an energy-guzzling algorithm, but simply a random choice from the computers in a network. Such a proof-of-stake algorithm only requires that a computer is on, not that it is hard at work. As a result, it only consumes 0.01% of the energy of the Bitcoin algorithm. '

The second-most popular crypto coin, Ethereum, will soon switch to such a system, according to De Vries.

'They just have to be certain that it works well enough and is safe enough to be useful." De Vries also emphasizes that there is a heated discussion whether proof-of-stake can work just as well as the method that Bitcoin now applies. Brosens also sees a more fundamental objection: "Proof-of-stake requires a kind of collateral. This new method ensures that only people with money or resources can participate in the mines. I think that goes against the egalitarian principle that Bitcoin started on. On the other hand, even now mining is already a game where mainly the rich who rent data centers play in.'

Whether the bitcoin fanatics enjoy a switch to such a system is yet to be seen. But for the environment, a switch would, in any case, be a blessing.

What do you think?