Bitcoin and energy: is the criticism justified?
For years, there have been two irreconcilable camps: on the one hand, supporters of Bitcoin who explain that it is the key to the energy transition, and on the other, its most resolute opponents who see it as the greatest threat to the planet.
"Bitcoin is an energy sink", "Bitcoin consumes more than Belgium"...
You've no doubt heard these arguments at least once before, and you'll continue to hear them as global warming has become a crucial issue - and so much the better!
But is it justified?
That's what we wanted to find out, with figures and experts to back it up.
First the figures. At the risk of upsetting a few people, bitcoin does indeed consume a lot of energy. We're currently talking about 94 TWh per year, the equivalent of a country like Kazakhstan or more than Belgium (so your cousin is right 😝 ). On another level, bitcoin consumes 50% more energy than all American lighting, according to Cambridge University, which is an authority on the subject.
Is bitcoin as bad for the environment as it's made out to be?