Skip to content
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 18 commits
Commits
Show all changes
25 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e97239c
add energy consumption page
jmcook1186 Aug 18, 2021
1bfdfc5
update index.md
jmcook1186 Aug 18, 2021
2e811b1
Merge branch 'ethereum:dev' into dev
jmcook1186 Aug 18, 2021
9c22ab9
Merge branch 'ethereum:dev' into dev
jmcook1186 Aug 19, 2021
1bfa4a0
Merge branch 'ethereum:dev' into dev
jmcook1186 Sep 7, 2021
8258e28
Merge branch 'ethereum:dev' into dev
jmcook1186 Sep 8, 2021
840e228
amended according to PR review comments
jmcook1186 Sep 15, 2021
d63b5bc
Update src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
minimalsm Sep 17, 2021
2079d73
Update src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
minimalsm Sep 17, 2021
414459c
Update src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
minimalsm Sep 17, 2021
297c29d
Update src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
minimalsm Sep 17, 2021
84c8b1e
Update src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
minimalsm Sep 17, 2021
efb04d3
Update src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
minimalsm Sep 17, 2021
58ab148
Update src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
minimalsm Sep 17, 2021
e4f0abe
correct error in no. beacon validators
jmcook1186 Sep 17, 2021
7000f9b
Merge branch 'dev' of https://github.com/jmcook1186/ethereum-org-webs…
jmcook1186 Sep 17, 2021
73e352d
Apply suggestions from code review
minimalsm Nov 2, 2021
ea0e63b
Update index.md
minimalsm Nov 2, 2021
68e4ab7
Merge branch 'ethereum:dev' into dev
jmcook1186 Nov 3, 2021
23e7da7
Merge branch 'ethereum:dev' into dev
jmcook1186 Nov 9, 2021
23a75fc
Updates based on suggestions
minimalsm Nov 9, 2021
7a61402
add refs as per PR review comments
jmcook1186 Nov 9, 2021
2618438
add refs
jmcook1186 Nov 10, 2021
eaa529f
Apply suggestions from code review
minimalsm Dec 9, 2021
fee0828
Update src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
minimalsm Dec 9, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
76 changes: 76 additions & 0 deletions src/content/energy_consumption/index.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
---
title: Ethereum Energy Consumption
description: The basic information you need to understand Ethereum's energy consumption.
lang: en
sidebar: true
---

Ethereum's current energy expenditure is too high and unsustainable. Resolving energy expenditure concerns without sacrificing security and decentralization has been a significant technical challenge for Ethereum's development. Let's explore why building Ethereum has had a high environmental impact and how upcoming network upgrades will dramatically change this.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ethereum's current energy expenditure is too high and unsustainable.

Agree with the sentiment here but I'm not sure leading this page with a subjective statement is the right approach. It's "too high" - according to who? It's "unsustainable" - is it? Smells like someones opinion.

I'd suggest focusing more on factual statements. e.g. "Ethereum's current energy expenditure is significant - comparable to the power consumption of a small country". We could potentially link out to sources here (e.g. https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption/ though I'm not sure this is an authoritative source).

"Overall, Ethereum represents around 0.1% of global electricity" might be another useful stat for context:
https://kylemcdonald.github.io/ethereum-emissions/

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree.

Maybe a more high-level critique about the intro and the order, I wish the article started with explaining the reduced energy impact under PoS and then went lightly into the temporary impact we have under PoW (sort of how Carl's article did). Our current situation is temporary after all ... it's kind of like we're burying the lead by putting the PoS information at the bottom.

I think a quick remedy could be putting a tl;dr that links to Carl's article at the top, something that says like:

TL;DR: Ethereum will use at least ~99.95% less energy with the transition to Proof of Stake. Read more [here](https://blog.ethereum.org/2021/05/18/country-power-no-more/).

Would be cool if that had it's own box to stand our, sort of like on the history page:

Screen Shot 2021-12-08 at 9 45 53 PM


## Energy secures the network {energy-secures-the-network}

Transactions on the Ethereum blockchain are validated by [miners](/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pow/mining). Miners bundle together transactions into ordered blocks and add them to the Ethereum blockchain. The new blocks get broadcast to all the other node operators who run the transactions independently and verify that they are valid. Any dishonesty shows up as an inconsistency between different nodes. Honest blocks are added to the blockchain and become an immutable part of history.

Reliance on miner honesty only works if there is a cost associated with mining and unpredictability about which specific node submits the next block. These conditions are met by imposing proof-of-work (PoW). To be eligible to submit a block of transactions, a miner must solve an arbitrary computational puzzle faster than any other miner. Solving this puzzle creates competition between miners and costs in the form of energy expenditure. To successfully defraud the blockchain, a dishonest miner would have to consistently win the proof-of-work race, which is very unlikely and prohibitively expensive.

Ethereum has used proof-of-work since genesis. Migrating off of proof-of-work has always been a fundamental goal of Ethereum. Still, it has been philosophically and technologically challenging because the viable alternatives all required to compromise Ethereum's core principles.

## Proof-of-work energy expenditure {#proof-of-work}

Proof-of-work is a robust way to secure against dishonest changes to the blockchain, but it is problematic for several reasons. Since the right to mine a block requires solving a computational puzzle, miners can increase their odds of success by investing in more powerful hardware. These incentives cause an arms race with miners acquiring increasingly power-hungry mining equipment. Ethereum's proof-of-work protocol currently consumes as much energy as a medium-sized country.

## Proof-of-stake {#proof-of-stake}

A greener future for Ethereum is already being built in the form of a **proof-of-stake (PoS)** chain. Under proof-of-stake, arbitrary puzzle-solving is unnecessary. Removing puzzle-solving drastically reduces the energy expenditure required to secure the network. Miners get replaced by validators who perform the same function except that instead of expending their assets up-front in the form of computational work, they stake ETH as collateral against dishonest behavior. If the validator's node is non-responsive or a fraudulent block gets submitted to the chain, the staked assets can be "slashed", strongly incentivizing honesty and securing the network.

Similarly to proof-of-work, to maintain a fraudulent blockchain, a validator would require 51% of the total ETH staked in the network. However, unlike proof-of-work, consensus is not based on the longest chain, but a mechanism known as ["Casper"](https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09437). Migrating from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake eliminates the need to expend energy on arbitrary computations.

## The merge {#the-merge}

There is a functional proof-of-stake chain called the [Beacon Chain](/eth2/beacon-chain/) that has been running since December 2020 that is demonstrating the viability of the proof-of-stake protocol. The merge refers to the point in time when Ethereum leaves proof-of-work behind and fully adopts proof-of-stake. The merge is expected to happen ~Q2 2022. [More on the merge](/eth2/merge/).

## Proof-of-stake energy expenditure {#proof-of-stake-energy}

As well as building confidence in the proof-of-stake mechanism, the Beacon Chain also enables estimates of Ethereum's post-merge energy usage. A recent [blog post on the ethereum.org blog](https://blog.ethereum.org/2021/05/18/country-power-no-more/) suggested that the merge to proof-of-stake could result in a 99.95% reduction in total energy use, with proof-of-stake being ~2000x more efficient than proof-of-work. The energy expenditure of Ethereum will be roughly equal to the cost of running a home computer for each node on the network.

![image](energy_use_per_transaction.png)

We can use this data to compare Ethereum to a global service like Visa. 100,000 Visa transactions uses 149kWh of energy<sup>[^2]</sup>. Assuming sharding has been implemented, Ethereum's current transaction rate (15 transactions per second) will be increased by at least 64x (the number of shards), not accounting for additional optimization from rollups. A realistic estimate for post-merge, sharded Ethereum with rollups is [25000 - 100000](https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1312905884549300224?s=20) transactions per second. We can use this information to estimate a maximum and minimum energy expenditure per 100,000 transactions.

- 25000 transactions per second.
- `100,000 / 25000 = 4` seconds to process 100,000 transactions.

We can also estimate Ethereum's energy expenditure per second, making a conservative estimate that 10,000 active validators are securing the network (there are over 180,000 validators on the Beacon Chain at the moment, but many validators can operate on a single node. Currently, there are 3000-4000 individual nodes, so 10,000 is a conservative estimate for post-merge):
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a page we can link out to to see these stats in real time?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@wackerow correct me if I'm wrong but these are rough deductions — I don't think it's possible to accurately measure this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Beaconscan has real time info on validator count on the home page https://beaconscan.com/ - will link here. I don't have a citation for the number of nodes though - the 10,000 estimate is a conservative estimate borrowed from the NFT page.


`1.44kWh daily usage * 10,000 network nodes = 14,400kWh` per day.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where are we getting this 1.44kWh?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

from the nft page. Can we ask the author of that page where the value came from? I have not been able to track down a source.

There are 86,400 seconds in a day, so `14,400 / 86,400 = 0.1667 kWh` per second.

If we multiply that by the amount of time it takes to process 100,000 transaction: `0.1667 * 4 = 0.667 kWh`.

This is ~0.4% of the energy used by Visa for the same number of transactions, or a reduction in energy expenditure by a factor of ~225.

Repeating the calculation with the maximum transactions-per-second yields 0.1667 kWh per second which is about 0.1% of the energy expenditure of Visa, or a reduction of ~894x.

_We’ve provided the basic comparison to Visa to baseline your understanding of post-merge Ethereum energy consumption against a familiar name. However, in practice, it’s not really correct to compare based on number of transactions. Ethereum’s energy output is time-based. If Ethereum did more or less transactions from one minute to the next, the energy output would stay the same._

_It’s also important to remember that Ethereum does more than just financial transactions, it’s a platform for applications, so a fairer comparison might be to many companies/industries including Visa, AWS and more!_

## A greener Ethereum {#green-ethereum}

While Ethereum's energy consumption has historically been substantial, there has been a major investment of developer time and intellect into transitioning from energy-hungry to energy-efficient block validation. To quote [Bankless](http://podcast.banklesshq.com/), the best way to conserve the energy consumed by proof-of-work is simply to "turn it off", which is the approach Ethereum has committed to take.

<InfoBanner emoji=":evergreen_tree:">
If you think these stats are incorrect or can be made more accurate, please raise an issue or PR. These are estimates by the ethereum.org team made using publicly accessible information and the current Ethereum roadmap. This doesn't represent an official promise from the Ethereum Foundation.
</InfoBanner>

## Further reading {#further-reading}

- [A country's worth of power, no more](https://blog.ethereum.org/2021/05/18/country-power-no-more/) – _Carl Beekhuizen, May 18 2021_
- [Ethereum Energy Consumption Index](https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption/) – _Digiconomist_

## Related Topics {#related-topics}

- [Ethereum's vision](/eth2/vision/)
- [The Beacon Chain](/eth2/beacon-chain)
- [The merge](/eth2/merge/)
- [Sharding](/eth2/beacon-chain/)