Exactly, no difference between the two whatsoever. It’s a pity more people don’t see through the ‘Bitcoin uses too much energy’ smear campaign. Although, thankfully, I think there’s now quite a lot of evidence-based research on the topic in the public domain which helps set the record straight.

Here’re some points which critics usually haven’t taken the time to consider:

1. Proof-of-work - using energy to obtain bitcoins, a digital commodity - is fundamental to Bitcoin’s decentralisation and ensures a system of rules without rulers; whereas, proof-of-stake is merely a mirror image of the fiat system where those with the most money staked can change the rules (evidenced most recently by ETH’s Shanghai rules revision).

2. The possibility that the energy input into the Bitcoin network - to provide sound money for every citizen of the world - is and will be looked on by current and future generations as one of the very best usages of energy in the history of humanity; the preservation of purchasing power for performed work will not only make individuals, and therefore communities, more economically resilient and self-sufficient, but will also help facilitate more considered and prudent capital allocation as investments will have to outperform the alternative choice of simply holding bitcoin.

3. As mentioned above, very few people - including Bitcoin energy critics - have an issue with the energy usage of: electric vehicles, the gaming industry, clothes dryers, festive lights, AC, etc. So critics need to ask themselves why do they take special exception with Bitcoin’s energy usage?