Myth: Bitcoin is bad for the environment

Bitcoin has a reputation for burning through electricity. It is one of the most repeated criticisms of the asset class, and it is not without basis. The network does use significant energy. But the conversation almost always stops there, before the comparison is made, before the source of that energy is examined, and before anyone asks what the alternative actually costs.

‍

Truth: More than half of Bitcoin's electricity now comes from renewables and nuclear 

High electricity use is inherent to Proof-of-Work networks such as Bitcoin. Cambridge’s latest mining survey estimates that 52.4% of the electricity used by the network comes from sustainable sources, including 42.6% renewables and 9.8% nuclear. Mining can also absorb power that might otherwise go unused and, because it can be switched off quickly, act as a flexible demand switch when grids are under stress. 

Bitcoin uses approximately 151 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year, a figure that is tracked and updated daily by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF). That transparency itself should be celebrated. The global banking system (data centers, 600,000 branches, 2.91 million ATMs, armored cash vehicles, and financial regulators) has never had its full energy footprint measured in the same way. When 21shares Research assembled the components, the total came to approximately 237 TWh per year (21shares Research, 2025). Bitcoin uses roughly two-thirds of that. Around 131 TWh of the banking figure is physical infrastructure; the remainder is the energy footprint of the sector’s 22 million employees.