Interesting look into why Bitcoin energy consumption is so specific, whilst the traditional banking sector energy usage data is so vague.

The difference in the specificity of energy consumption data between Bitcoin and the banking sector can be attributed to the following factors amongst other things. I’ll call these “variables and internal factors”:

1. Transparency and measurability:

Bitcoin's energy consumption primarily comes from mining, which is based on a transparent, computationally intensive process called proof-of-work. This allows for relatively straightforward estimations of energy usage based on factors like hash rate, mining hardware efficiency, and mining difficulty. The Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI) is an example of a tool that estimates Bitcoin's energy consumption in real-time.

2. Complexity and diversity of the banking sector:

In contrast, the traditional banking sector consists of numerous interconnected components, including data centers, branches, ATM networks, and the production of physical currency. Each component has its specific energy consumption profile, and the energy usage can vary significantly across different banks, countries, and technologies. This complexity makes it challenging to arrive at a single, accurate estimate for the entire sector.

3. Lack of standardized reporting:

While some banks and financial institutions report their energy consumption as part of corporate social responsibility and sustainability initiatives, there is no standardized or comprehensive reporting framework for the entire banking sector. This lack of consistent data further complicates the estimation of the sector's energy consumption.

Due to these factors, Bitcoin's energy consumption is often easier to estimate and quantify than that of the traditional banking sector. The transparency of Bitcoin's mining process and the complexity and diversity of the banking sector contribute to the difference in the specificity of energy consumption data.