So I'm scrolling through Facebook last week during lunch break, eating a sandwich in my truck, when I see this post from my cousin Mike talking about investing in Bitcoin. Mike works HVAC, solid guy, but he's asking if crypto is bad for the environment. Made me think about how my own opinion on this stuff has completely flipped over the past couple years.
Used to think cryptocurrency was just internet funny money for people who had too much time on their hands. Honestly didn't give it much thought until about two years ago when I was doing electrical work at this tech company downtown. Young guy there, maybe twenty-five, drives a Tesla, starts telling me about Bitcoin mining and how much electricity it uses. I'm thinking, okay, computer stuff uses power, so what? Then he tells me Bitcoin uses more electricity than entire countries. Entire countries. I thought he was pulling my leg.
Got home that night and looked it up. Norway. Bitcoin uses more power than Norway. A whole country with five million people. My first thought was, what kind of computer operation needs that much juice? I mean, I've wired data centers, server rooms, big commercial operations. Even the biggest ones I've worked on don't come close to that kind of power draw. Started doing some digging because this seemed impossible.
Turns out there's this thing called proof-of-work, which is basically millions of computers around the world racing to solve math problems that don't actually accomplish anything useful. It's like having every electrician in the country running circular saws twenty-four hours a day just to prove they can run circular saws. Complete waste of electricity. No wonder my electric bills were getting crazy if this is what people are using power for.
This bothered me more than it probably should have. Here I am trying to reduce our home energy consumption, installing LED lights, upgrading to efficient appliances, teaching my boys to turn off lights when they leave rooms. Meanwhile there are warehouses full of computers burning through enough electricity to power small nations just to create digital coins. Seemed like a massive step backward for anyone trying to live more efficiently.
Did more research over the next few weeks. The numbers kept getting worse. Some estimates put Bitcoin's energy consumption closer to Argentina. That's forty-five million people. For comparison, my entire electrical usage for a year – house, garage, everything – could probably run one Bitcoin mining computer for maybe a day. Maybe. The scale was just mind-boggling.
Started bringing this up with customers when it seemed relevant. Had one job where I was installing a whole-house generator for a guy who mentioned he was into cryptocurrency. Couldn't help but point out that his generator probably used less fuel in emergency situations than crypto mining operations use electricity constantly. He got defensive, started talking about how traditional banks use energy too. Fair point, but when you run the numbers, bank branches and ATMs are way more efficient per transaction than Bitcoin. Not even close.
But then I ran into something that changed my thinking. Was working on a job at the university, upgrading electrical panels in their computer science building, when I overheard some professors talking about Ethereum switching to something called proof-of-stake. Caught enough of their conversation to understand this was supposed to use way less energy. Like ninety-nine percent less energy. That got my attention.
Looked into this proof-of-stake thing when I got home. Instead of millions of computers racing to solve pointless math problems, the system picks validators based on how much cryptocurrency they're willing to stake as collateral. Kind of like the difference between holding a contest to see who can lift the most weight versus just asking someone who's already strong to do the job. Much more efficient.
The energy savings were incredible. Ethereum went from using as much power as a small country to using about as much as a few thousand homes. That's the kind of efficiency improvement that makes sense from an electrical perspective. Finally, someone was thinking about this rationally instead of just burning electricity for the sake of burning electricity.
Started paying more attention to different cryptocurrencies. Turns out Bitcoin is the big energy hog, but there are others that use these more efficient systems. Ethereum after their switch, Cardano, some others I can't pronounce. Most people just know about Bitcoin because it gets all the news coverage, but there are alternatives that don't require massive energy consumption.
Had a customer last year who was a Bitcoin mining enthusiast. Nice guy, but he had this whole setup in his basement that was pulling serious amperage. I was there to upgrade his electrical service because his mining equipment kept tripping breakers. His electric bill was over four hundred dollars a month. Four hundred dollars. For his basement hobby. That's more than my entire household electrical usage.
He kept talking about how his mining was powered by renewable energy because our local utility has some solar and wind power. Technically true, but that's not really how the grid works. Every kilowatt-hour his mining equipment uses is electricity that could be going to something actually useful. Even if it's renewable electricity, it's still wasteful. It's like having a faucet running clean water constantly just because the water is clean.
But I get why people are interested in cryptocurrency. The traditional banking system isn't perfect either. Credit card companies, banks, all their buildings and computer systems use plenty of electricity too. Had a conversation with my wife about this, and she pointed out that our bank branch keeps their lights on all night, runs computers constantly, has that electronic sign that nobody looks at. Fair point, though when researchers actually compare the energy per transaction, traditional banking still comes out way ahead of Bitcoin.
The whole thing reminds me of arguments I've had with customers about incandescent bulbs. Sure, LED bulbs cost more upfront, but they use way less electricity and last longer. Eventually the economics work out better, plus you're not wasting energy generating heat instead of light. Same logic applies to cryptocurrency. The energy-efficient versions might be newer or less familiar, but they accomplish the same basic function without the massive waste.
What really changed my perspective was realizing that cryptocurrency technology itself isn't the problem. It's specifically how Bitcoin implements it. Like the difference between an old energy-wasting electrical system and a modern efficient one. Both deliver electricity to where it needs to go, but one does it much more efficiently.
My cousin Mike ended up asking me about all this after seeing my Facebook comments on his post. Told him what I'd learned – that Bitcoin specifically is an environmental disaster, but there are alternatives that use way less energy. He ended up putting some money into Ethereum instead. Not sure if that was the right financial choice, but at least it wasn't contributing to the energy waste problem as much.
Been thinking about this more as I see solar installations becoming more common in my work. Every house that gets solar panels is generating clean electricity, but if that electricity just gets used for Bitcoin mining, we're not really making progress on sustainability. It's like installing efficient LED lights and then leaving them on constantly. The technology is better, but the usage pattern cancels out the benefits.
There are some interesting developments happening though. Layer 2 solutions that process multiple transactions together to reduce energy per transaction. New consensus mechanisms that use even less energy than proof-of-stake. Some blockchain projects are specifically designed around environmental sustainability from the start. The technology is evolving toward efficiency, just not fast enough for Bitcoin.
The regulatory side is getting interesting too. Some states are looking at restrictions on energy-intensive cryptocurrency mining. New York passed a moratorium on certain types of mining operations. Makes sense from a grid management perspective – why allow industrial operations that consume massive amounts of electricity without producing anything society actually needs?
Still skeptical of Bitcoin itself. The community seems almost religiously attached to their energy-wasting system, claiming it's more secure. Maybe it is, but the environmental cost is too high. It's like insisting on using incandescent bulbs because they produce more heat. Sure, that might be useful sometimes, but it's inefficient for the main purpose.
Had another customer recently who was interested in setting up cryptocurrency mining in his garage. Walked him through the electrical requirements and the monthly cost in electricity. When he realized his potential mining profits would be less than his electric bill, suddenly the whole operation seemed less appealing. Sometimes people just need to see the actual numbers.
The whole experience taught me something about new technology. Just because something is high-tech doesn't mean it's efficient. Bitcoin mining uses cutting-edge computers to do something incredibly wasteful. Meanwhile, newer cryptocurrency systems use similar technology much more efficiently. Progress isn't always linear.
My boys are getting to the age where they're curious about investing and technology. When they ask about cryptocurrency, I explain the difference between the energy-wasting versions and the efficient ones. Same way I taught them about LED versus incandescent bulbs, or efficient appliances versus energy hogs. The underlying technology can be the same, but the implementation makes all the difference for environmental impact.
These days I'm cautiously optimistic about cryptocurrency, with heavy emphasis on the word cautiously. The technology can work without massive energy waste, and market pressure is slowly pushing toward more efficient systems. But Bitcoin specifically is still an environmental disaster, and it's big enough to overshadow the improvements happening elsewhere.
Still tell people to avoid Bitcoin if they care about energy efficiency. But the broader cryptocurrency space is developing some genuinely efficient alternatives. It's like the difference between recommending against all light bulbs versus recommending LED bulbs over incandescent ones. The category isn't the problem, specific implementations are.
The future probably involves more efficient digital currencies, whether that's improved cryptocurrencies or central bank digital currencies that governments control more directly. Either way, we're likely moving toward digital money systems that don't require burning massive amounts of electricity to prove mathematical points.
Just wish Bitcoin would get with the program and switch to something more efficient. But knowing that community, they'll probably stick with their energy-wasting system until the last coal plant shuts down. Some people just resist change, even when the change makes obvious sense from an efficiency standpoint.
Larry’s a mechanic by trade and a minimalist by accident. After years of chasing stuff, he’s learning to live lighter—fixing what breaks, buying less, and appreciating more. His posts are straight-talking, practical, and proof that sustainable living doesn’t have to mean fancy products or slogans.
