The Bitcoin network consumes around 110–120 TWh of electricity per year, while the global banking system uses an estimated 200–250 TWh annually — more than double.
Despite its energy intensity, Bitcoin is more efficient per transaction, largely powered by renewables, and far less infrastructure-dependent than traditional finance.Why Compare Bitcoin and Banking Energy Use?
Both systems aim to store and move value globally — but their energy footprints come from very different sources.
-
Bitcoin’s energy use = computational security (Proof of Work).
-
Banking’s energy use = physical infrastructure, buildings, ATMs, servers, transport, and data centers.
Comparing the two shows how decentralized digital money can compete with — and even outperform — legacy financial networks in energy efficiency.
Bitcoin’s Annual Energy Consumption
| Metric | Estimate (2025) | Source / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Annual Energy Use | 110–120 TWh | Cambridge Bitcoin Index (CBECI) |
| Renewable Share | ~55–60% | Bitcoin Mining Council 2025 |
| Carbon Emissions | ~40 Mt CO₂/year | Declining yearly |
| Energy per Transaction | ~700–900 kWh | Highly variable with block activity |
Most Bitcoin energy comes from Proof of Work mining, where miners compete to solve SHA-256 puzzles.
The network uses roughly 0.45% of global electricity, less than gaming or data centers.
Traditional Banking System Energy Footprint
Most Bitcoin energy comes from Proof of Work mining, where miners compete to solve SHA-256 puzzles.
The network uses roughly 0.45% of global electricity, less than gaming or data centers.
| Component | Energy Use Estimate | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Branches & Offices | ~80–100 TWh | Lighting, heating, and equipment in millions of buildings |
| ATMs (3.5M+) | ~25–30 TWh | Constant standby power + cash logistics |
| Data Centers & IT Systems | ~80–100 TWh | Servers, storage, and cybersecurity |
| Card Networks & Payment Infrastructure | ~20–30 TWh | Visa, Mastercard, SWIFT, etc. |
| Total Estimate | 200–250 TWh/year | Roughly twice Bitcoin’s total usage |
The global banking system’s footprint is spread across hundreds of thousands of institutions, tens of millions of employees, and billions of devices.
The Efficiency Factor
The global banking system’s footprint is spread across hundreds of thousands of institutions, tens of millions of employees, and billions of devices.
| System | Energy Use (TWh) | Users Served | Infrastructure | Renewable Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bitcoin | ~110 | 100+ million | Digital, decentralized | ~60% |
| Banking | ~220 | 4+ billion | Physical, centralized | ~40% |
While banking serves more users, it relies on legacy infrastructure with high fixed energy costs — physical branches, armored transport, and office networks.
Bitcoin, meanwhile, is purely digital — energy scales with network security, not employees or buildings.
Energy Source Comparison
| Source | Bitcoin Network | Traditional Banking |
|---|---|---|
| Renewables | 55–60% (hydro, solar, wind) | 35–45% average |
| Fossil Fuels | 40–45% | 55–65% |
| Waste Energy (flared gas) | ~10% | 0% |
Bitcoin miners often repurpose stranded or wasted energy, especially in Texas, Canada, and the Middle East — something banking infrastructure cannot easily do.
Key Insight: Energy Purpose Matters
Bitcoin’s energy use = security and decentralization.
Banking’s energy use = maintenance of legacy systems (offices, ATMs, transport).
| Factor | Bitcoin | Banking |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Creates… | Immutable, trustless network | Physical operations & bureaucracy |
| Scales With… | Network difficulty | Number of institutions |
| Auditability | Public blockchain | Centralized, opaque |
| Upgrade Cost | Software updates | Physical infrastructure replacement |
Bitcoin’s energy use directly secures a global financial ledger — banking’s energy use maintains trust-based middlemen.
Environmental Reality
-
Bitcoin’s emissions are declining, thanks to renewable adoption and more efficient ASIC miners.
-
Traditional banking’s emissions remain high and steady, especially from buildings and cash logistics.
-
Bitcoin can operate entirely on clean energy — the legacy system cannot.
Summary
| Comparison | Bitcoin Mining | Traditional Banking |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Use (TWh) | 110–120 | 200–250 |
| Renewable Share | ~60% | ~40% |
| Infrastructure Type | Digital | Physical |
| Security Model | Cryptographic (PoW) | Institutional trust |
| Scalability | Global, borderless | Regionally fragmented |
Bitcoin uses less energy than banking, achieves stronger transparency, and continues moving toward renewable self-sufficiency — while the traditional system remains costly, slow, and resource-heavy.