{"id":15199,"date":"2021-08-10T15:17:14","date_gmt":"2021-08-10T15:17:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ci028a5319500025a3"},"modified":"2025-10-01T13:17:47","modified_gmt":"2025-10-01T18:17:47","slug":"bitcoin-energy-use-compare-industry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/business\/bitcoin-energy-use-compare-industry","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin\u2019s Energy Use Compared To Other Major Industries"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

As a civil engineer still working in the construction industry full-time, the burgeoning Bitcoin ecosystem is not an environment where I can easily make any significant impact in terms of technological development or coding. That said, there are several civil engineering skills that transfer over to the Bitcoin space, mainly, environmental analysis and strong knowledge of the built environment and traditional commodity mining, which is where I initially found my niche in the Bitcoin space back in 2014. <\/p>\n

If you were wondering why I\u2019d only previously compared Bitcoin to banking<\/a>, gold<\/a> and the military industrial complex<\/a>, and not more industries and sectors such as my very own building and construction sector, or even healthcare or transport (road, rail, air and sea) for that matter, then today\u2019s your lucky day! Let\u2019s have a look at some data on all of the above.<\/p>\n

How Much Energy Is Bitcoin Consuming?<\/h2>\n

For context, at time of writing, the Cambridge Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index<\/a> (CBECI) estimates Bitcoin\u2019s annual energy use at 79 terawatt hours (TWh)<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

The next question is one of carbon intensity. In a previous article<\/a>, I calculated the carbon intensity of the Bitcoin network to be around 420 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWh) based on data from Cambridge\u2019s \u201c3rd Global Cryptoasset Benchmarking Study<\/a>.\u201d However, this was long before the Chinese mining exodus happened in June and July 2021, where almost half of the entire network unplugged its mostly coal-powered rigs. <\/p>\n

Figure 17 from that report (page 27), shown below as figure One, demonstrates the typical energy sources for miners around the world.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

China is now out of the picture, and fresh data from the Bitcoin Mining Council (BMC) (figure two) shows that over two-thirds of the membership, representing almost one-third of the network hash rate, is being powered by low-emissions energy sources, and that global Bitcoin mining is now estimated to receive 56% of its energy needs from sustainable sources (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal and other \u201crenewables\u201d).<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

To that end, I offer a new global mining profile and carbon intensity figure of 280 grams of CO2 per kWh<\/strong>, using my original methodology presented in this previous article<\/a> (see section one on energy mix) based on the below assumed generation mix, and 50th percentile IPCC carbon intensity figures<\/a> (see page 190). The dramatic drop is a result of moving a large proportion of the network from coal to gas, cutting the carbon intensity of Bitcoin by a third.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

As can be seen, since the Chinese exodus, Bitcoin\u2019s carbon intensity has dropped by a third, from 419 to 280, mainly as a result of shifting away from coal to the much cleaner natural gas. Comparing Bitcoin to global primary energy production shows that Bitcoin is less than half as carbon intense, and when compared to the world\u2019s grid, is over 40% less carbon intense.<\/p>\n

So! Now that we know Bitcoin\u2019s carbon intensity is 280 g of CO2 per kWh<\/u> (or 0.28 megatonnes [Mt] of CO2 per TWh), and that Bitcoin uses 79 TWh per year<\/u>, we can quickly arrive at an emissions figure of 22.1 Mt CO2 per year<\/u>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bitcoin\u2019s Energy Use Compared To Building And Construction<\/h2>\n

The United Nations Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (Global ABC) provides detailed data on the building and construction sector in its annual \u201cGlobal Status Report for Buildings and Construction<\/a>.\u201d The below figure comes from the 2020 iteration of its report, and is based on data from The International Energy Association\u2019s (IEA) \u201cWorld Energy Statistics and Balances Database<\/a>\u201d (paywalled) and \u201cEnergy Technology Perspectives<\/a>\u201d report (free).<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

The \u201cEnergy Technology Perspectives<\/a>\u201d report states that \u201cprimary energy use worldwide reached 14,400 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2019\u201d (page 36), and that there were 33 gigatonnes (Gt) of greenhouse gases (GHG) linked to fossil fuel energy generation globally in 2019 (page 49), expected to drop to 30.6 Gt in 2020 due to COVID (page 50). GHGs are also produced by non-fossil-fuel energy generation, and total world CO2 emissions for 2019 were 36,440 (Mt)<\/a>. <\/p>\n

To be conservative, I will assume that The UN is taking the IEA figure of 33 Gt. To that end, 38% of emissions is equal to 12,540 Mt CO2. The UN Global ABC states that \u201cGlobal final energy consumption for buildings operation was approximately 130 EJ [exajoules] [about 36111 TWh], which is around 30% of total final consumption, and a further 21 EJ [about 5833 TWh] for buildings and construction or 5% of total demand\u201d (page 20).<\/p>\n

So, from the above figures, what numbers can we draw? First, let’s establish the uniform units of \u201cterawatt hours (TWh)\u201d for energy use and \u201cmegatonnes of CO2 equivalents\u201d (MtCO2e) for carbon emissions \u2014 I wish all of the various environmental and energy agencies would follow suit! To that end, 1 megatonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe) is equal to 11.63 TWh, 1 quad British thermal unit (BTU) is equal to 293.07 TWh, and 1 EJ is equal to 277.777 TWh.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s where it gets a little messy, and why comparisons and debates are not useful \u2014 the \u201cofficial\u201d environmental data is always opaque, inconsistent and sometimes misleading. In the same report<\/a>, the IEA specifies that primary energy supply was 14,400 Mtoe, or 167,472 TWh<\/strong>. Later, on page 159, it says, \u201c[Operating] the buildings sector \u2014 including residences, offices, shops, hotels, schools and other public and commercial premises [but not including construction of these premises] \u2014 today accounts directly and indirectly for 30% of the final energy consumed around the world<\/strong>, or around 3,100 Mtoe, including almost 55% of global electricity consumption.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

Notice the subtle difference? It starts with production<\/strong> numbers<\/strong>, but switches to consumption numbers<\/strong> for a stronger narrative \u2014 the bigger the number, the bigger the evil. 3,100 Mtoe is only 36,053 TWh, which is only 21.5% of global energy production. If you\u2019re doing the math in your head and wondering how the building sector uses 21.5% of the world\u2019s produced<\/strong> energy, but at the same time, 30% of the world\u2019s consumed<\/strong> energy, you would be 100% correct in concluding that almost one-third of what we produce is not consumed at all and simply goes to waste. <\/p>\n

To be precise, in the IEA\u2019s \u201cKey World Energy Statistics 2020<\/a>\u201d report, it showed that only 9,938 Mtoe<\/strong> of energy was consumed (page 34) out of 14,282 Mtoe<\/strong> supplied (page six) \u2014 30.41%, 4,344 Mtoe, or 50,520 TWh<\/strong>, is wasted. When the wastage alone can power Bitcoin over 639 times, it is at this point where all debate about Bitcoin energy consumption should die, but alas, we endure.<\/p>\n

Sorry to get off track! Here are those numbers that I promised you earlier, but not as percentages of world consumption, but as raw numbers:<\/p>\n