Statistics Shows Gold Mining Costs 23 Times more than Bitcoin Mining

Bitcoin Mining in China

Data posted by a Twitter user simply known as Asimov shows that Gold mining consumes 23 times more energy than Bitcoin mining. Asimov’s data shows more on banking systems, governments and paper currency minting.

The figures showed that Gold costs about $105 billion annually and consumes about 475 million GJ while Bitcoin mining costs only $4.5 billion and uses only 183 million GJ annually. Other such systems like Gold recycling, paper currency and minting, banking system and government all cost more than Bitcoin mining.

This data is important because one of the major arguments against the existence of Bitcoin has been that the cost and electricity consumption is extravagant. Although there have been several scientific proofs that this is not the case, governments and individuals who do not like Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for that matter have always stressed this point.

Some have purported that Bitcoin mining consumes more electricity than 82% of all countries of the world. The article claims a bitcoin mining firm in Mongolia consumed as much energy as a Boeing 737. Although it is not clear how these calculations but this has been proven several times to be untrue. In fact, some have shown that Bitcoin mining may actually be beneficial to the environment.

According to a study by Nodeblockchain published in 2018, the cost of mining will force miners to opt for more renewable sources of energy which are friendly to the environment, thus benefiting the environment in the process. It also adds that the reward of mining is dependent on energy efficiency and so energy waste will only reduce mining efficiency as well as rewards, a situation that every miner would want to avoid.


This study alone shows Bitcoin is not the problem as far as energy consumption and damage to the environment is concerned. If anything, it shows that Bitcoin mining ensures even energy distribution as miners tend to move towards places where there is unfairly abundant power. This is not likely to result in “The Cryptoapocalypse” that some claim will happen soon if Bitcoin continues to exist.

Asimov’s data may be another reminder that Bitcoin is not the problem and although it has several weaknesses such as such as scalability, it does not consume more energy than most countries of the world and will not cause an environmental catastrophe but may actually save us from both.