Bitcoin power consumption drops to November 2020 level: data
According to a recent report, Bitcoin’s estimated total annual electricity consumption has fallen by nearly 60%, falling from an all-time high of over 143 terawatt hours (TWh) in May to a low of 62 TWh in early July Cambridge Bitcoin Power Consumption Index (CBECI). This is the lowest energy consumption since the beginning of November 2020.
At the time of writing, Bitcoin’s annual electricity consumption is estimated at 67 TWh, while the consumption cap, or absolute maximum total electricity consumption based on the worst-case assumption, is 162 TWh, up from 520 TWh in mid-May.
The lower limit, which corresponds to the absolute minimum total electricity consumption, which is based on the best-case assumption that all miners always use the most energy-efficient devices available on the market, has also fallen from 47 TWh to 24 TWh.
Although global regulators continue to blame Bitcoin (BTC) for its excessive energy consumption and associated environmental disasters, Bitcoin’s energy consumption has actually decreased recently, according to Cointelegraph.
Connected: Survey by the Bitcoin Mining Council estimates the sustainable energy mix at 56% in the second quarter
As previously reported, Bitcoin’s parabolic upward movement, which drove its price above $ 64,000 in April, fueled a massive growth in power consumption by Bitcoin miners, sparking a huge debate over the potential environmental impact of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin subsequently saw a massive sell-off after Tesla CEO Elon Musk suspended Bitcoin payments for Tesla car purchases on May 12.
Coupled with Bitcoin’s price, Bitcoin’s estimated power consumption has plummeted since the announcement, further fueled by China’s crackdown on the crypto-mining industry. Following the closure of crypto mining facilities in Inner Mongolia in April this year, Chinese authorities enforced a number of crypto mining bans in key crypto mining hubs, including provinces, hydropower such as Sichuan and Yunnan, as well as Xinjiang and Qinghai .
.
.