-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.4k
Add Ethereum energy consumption page #3650
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from 18 commits
e97239c
1bfdfc5
2e811b1
9c22ab9
1bfa4a0
8258e28
840e228
d63b5bc
2079d73
414459c
297c29d
84c8b1e
efb04d3
58ab148
e4f0abe
7000f9b
73e352d
ea0e63b
68e4ab7
23e7da7
23a75fc
7a61402
2618438
eaa529f
fee0828
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| ## 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| ## 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| ## 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| ## 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. | ||
|
|
||
|  | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| - 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): | ||
|
||
|
|
||
| `1.44kWh daily usage * 10,000 network nodes = 14,400kWh` per day. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Where are we getting this 1.44kWh?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| 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!_ | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| ## 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. | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| </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_ | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| - [Ethereum Energy Consumption Index](https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption/) – _Digiconomist_ | ||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
minimalsm marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| ## Related Topics {#related-topics} | ||
|
|
||
| - [Ethereum's vision](/eth2/vision/) | ||
| - [The Beacon Chain](/eth2/beacon-chain) | ||
| - [The merge](/eth2/merge/) | ||
| - [Sharding](/eth2/beacon-chain/) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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: