Crypto Crash Probably Won’t Ease Crypto’s Massive Energy Suck

Enormous energy consumption has barely reduced despite $1tn being wiped off the sector

A Bitcoin mining operation.Getty Images

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The crypto crash will not reduce the sector’s climate impact any time soon, an economist has warned, even though the environmental footprint of digital currencies is in theory set by their market value.

“Unless Bitcoin collapses further, there’s no reason to expect a decrease in environmental impact,” said Alex de Vries, a data scientist at the Dutch central bank and the founder of Digiconomist, which tracks the sustainability of cryptocurrency projects.

His research shows that while the increase in a cryptocurrency’s price encourages more computer capacity to be dedicated to it—increasing carbon emissions—that capacity takes a long time to disappear after the value declines, so the climate impact persists.

Cryptocurrencies work by validating their transactions through huge numbers of “miners” who use their computers to solve extremely complex math problems in exchange for the chance of getting tokens as a reward, in a highly energy-intensive process. De Vries estimates that the Bitcoin network uses about 204 terrawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year, around the same as the energy consumption of Thailand and above that of all but 23 sovereign nations.

Other cryptocurrencies add to that footprint: Ethereum, the token that underpins the NFT boom and the “decentralized finance” sector, has an annualized footprint of around 104TWh (equivalent to Kazakhstan, and more than all but 34 nations), while even Dogecoin, a lighthearted spinoff of Bitcoin famed for its community’s positive attitude, consumes an estimated 4TWh annually.

Those figures have barely changed over the past month despite $1 trillion being wiped off the crypto sector, and other measures of the amount of processing power devoted to “mining” similarly show little decline.

All major cryptocurrencies use electrical power in rough proportion to the price of the token because that dictates how much the reward given to miners is worth. For Bitcoin, for instance, the reward for successful mining is 6.25 Bitcoin every 10 minutes—currently, about $210,000.

The higher the value of the reward, the more energy it is worth using to try to win it, ensuring that as the price of Bitcoin rose from $8,000 in October 2019 to $60,000 two years later, the energy use of the sector rose too, from 73TWh to its current high.

But while an increase in the price of cryptocurrency quickly leads to an increase in the carbon emissions of the sector, a crash like the one seen in past month doesn’t do the reverse. “It likely stops the environmental impact from going up any further,” said de Vries, “but a Bitcoin price of $25,200 is sufficient to sustain an annual electricity consumption of 184TWh.”

That’s because the cost of cryptocurrency mining is split over two main areas: buying the hardware and paying for electricity. When prices are on the rise, miners buy new computers—expensive graphics cards for Ethereum or purpose-built “rigs” for Bitcoin—but once they are already set up, it’s worth switching them off only when the cost of electricity alone is higher than the expected revenue.

In a paper published in the journal Joule last year, de Vries estimated that a massive crash in the price of Bitcoin, back down to $8,000, would be required to meaningfully reduce the total emissions of mining—and even then, it could sustain an energy consumption of up to 60TWh per year.

The continued turmoil in the cryptocurrency markets means the sector may have further to contract. On Wednesday morning, tether, a stablecoin that effectively functions as a bank, paid out a further $1.5 billion to depositors withdrawing their cash from its coffers. In the past week, the slow-motion bank run has seen $9 billion of its reserves withdrawn, more than 10 percent of its total market cap and well over twice the cash-on-hand it declared it had at the beginning of the year.

Andreessen Horowitz, a prominent venture capital firm and one of the key financial backers of the cryptocurrency sector, said on Tuesday that we may be entering a “crypto winter”, echoing a warning from the Coinbase chief executive, Brian Armstrong, that valuations may be depressed for some time.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate