Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint

of PoS Blockchain Protocols

January 2022

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 © Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute, 2022
carbon-ratings.com

The Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute (CCRI) is a brand of CCRI GmbH based in Dingolfing, Germany.

Title photo by Terry on Unsplash.

 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of

Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols
January 2022

Ulrich Gallersdörfer, Lena Klaaßen, Christian Stoll

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
carbon-ratings.com

Preamble

This report is prepared by the Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute (CCRI) for
Avalanche Inc.

Executive summary

• The electricity consumption and carbon footprint of Proof of Work (PoW)-based

cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin remain significant.
• Blockchain networks based on alternative consensus mechanisms such as Proof of Stake (PoS)
consume significantly less electricity.
• For the 6 PoS networks assessed in this study, we find a variance in total yearly electricity
consumption of 28x – ranging from 70 MWh (Polkadot) to 1,967 MWh (Solana).
• Comparing electricity consumption per node or transaction shows different rankings of the 6
PoS networks.
• Electricity consumption can be translated into carbon emissions via emission factors of
electricity generation to gauge climate impacts.
• Continuous development and evolution of networks require regular updates of measurement
and analyses.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 3

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

1 Introduction

The electricity consumption and related carbon footprint of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are
subject to extensive discussion in public, academia, and industry. For these protocols, various
estimations exist, comparing Bitcoin's electricity consumption to countries like Norway (de Vries, 2021;
Stoll, Klaaßen, & Gallersdörfer, 2019). The problem has been known for several years, and other
systems and technologies have emerged to solve the issue. The consensus family of Proof of Stake
(PoS) is deemed superior regarding the electricity requirements compared to the traditional Proof of
Work (PoW) consensus mechanisms (King & Nadal, 2012). While it is consensus in the broader scientific
community that PoS could solve the electricity issues of PoW, it is unclear how these PoS systems
compare to each other.

Instead of requiring computational power to solve mining puzzles for securing the network in PoW,
PoS requires validators to lock in funds for a specific period of time to propose or vote on new blocks.
Due to the nature of the software engineering process and network architectures, different PoS
systems rely on varying fundamentals regarding the hardware requirements, programming language,
network size, transaction throughput, transaction complexity, and more. These factors influence the
electricity consumption and, therefore, the carbon footprint of a respective network. While it is
expected that the overall differences between PoS networks are minor, it is nonetheless essential to
understand the absolute and relative energy efficiency of single networks (Gallersdörfer, Klaaßen, &
Stoll, 2020).

In this report, we provide an analysis of the electricity consumption, carbon footprint, and influencing
factors of six major Proof of Stake-based cryptocurrencies. We rank these currencies in terms of
electricity consumption, carbon footprint, and other factors such as transaction throughput and energy
efficiency. Table 1 summarizes all results.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 4

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Table 1: Overview of results. Green cells mark the best value for the respective column.

Total electricity Electricity per Total carbon

Nodes Transactions Electricity per
consumption transaction emissions
[# total] [Tx/year]a node [kWh/year]
[kWh/year] [Wh/Tx] [tCO2e/year]
Cardano 3,002 11.9 mn 598,755 199.45 51.59 284.41
Polkadot 297 4.0 mn 70,237 236.49 17.42 33.36
Solana 1,015 11.8 bn 1,967,930 1,938.85 0.166 934.77
Tezos 375 2.5 mn 113,249 250.99 41.45 53.79
Avalancheb 1,084 93.9 mn 489,311 451.39 4.76 232.42
Algorand 1,190 190.0 mn 512,671 430.82 2.70 243.52

This report is outlined as follows: In chapter 2, we define the aim and scope and the selected
cryptocurrencies to understand the goals and limitations of this report. We describe the methodology
of how this study is conducted in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 outlines the selected hardware and the
infrastructure established for electricity measurements. Chapter 5 provides the calculation of the
electricity consumption and carbon footprint of the respective networks. In Chapter 6, we analyze the
electricity consumptions of the networks in the context of other metrics. Chapter 7 concludes with a
summary and an outlook on the future of the environmental impact of PoS-based networks.

a
We assume the amount of transactions occurred during our measurement for a daily basis.
b
These numbers represent the numbers for Avalanche network, including a major update in the node software
implemented in September/October 2021. The initial measurement performed prior to the update in August
2021 yielded the following results: Total energy consumption [kWh/year]: 144,384 | Electricity per node
[kWh/year]: 139.77 | Electricity per transaction [Wh/Tx]: 14.27 | Total carbon emissions [tCO2e/year]: 68.58

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 5

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

2 Aim and scope

This report aims to provide insights into the electricity consumption and carbon footprint of the
current state of PoS networks. To do so, we present a methodology which we describe in Chapter 3.

It is noteworthy that the methodology is a helpful tool to derive a ballpark estimate for total electricity
consumption and carbon emissions as well as the relative performance. However, the networks are
associated with uncertainties that impede deriving exact numbers of the electricity consumption or,
respectively, of the network's carbon footprint. Numerous factors, such as the network size, varying
hardware configuration, or network infrastructure, influence the overall electricity consumption.
Nonetheless, we deem this report to produce the most precise electricity consumption and carbon
footprint estimates for these cryptocurrencies to date, as we observe and measure the electricity
consumption of single hardware components and use them as a proxy for the overall network.

The establishment of representative hardware, network sizes, and electricity measurements form the
basis for future research, such as comparing different networks and their respective requirements and
properties. Identical assumptions (e.g., selected hardware) for networks and adjustments for their
requirements (e.g., the hardware requirements for some networks are higher than others) allow to
build a valid data set for the comparison of these networks.

For our analysis, we select all Proof-of-Stake networks in the Top 40 of cryptocurrency market
capitalization according to coinmarketcap.com on 7th of May 2021c. Table 2: Overview of PoS-based
cryptocurrencies by market cap and rank among all cryptocurrencies displays the respective currency
with their rank, name, ticker symbol and the market capitalization. Their combined market
capitalization is about $ 117 bn USD, a share of about 4.9 % of the overall market capitalization of all
cryptocurrencies.

Table 2: Overview of PoS-based cryptocurrencies by market cap and rank among all cryptocurrencies as of the 7th of May
2021

Rank Name Symbol Market Capitalization

7 Cardano ADA $ 52.8 bn
8 Polkadot DOT $ 37.4 bn
17 Solana SOL $ 11.8 bn
33 Tezos XTZ $ 5.5 bn
37 Avalanche AVAX $ 4.9 bn
38 Algorand ALGO $ 4.7 bn
$ 117.1 bn

c
https://coinmarketcap.com/historical/20210507/

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 6

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

3 Methodology

Our methodology builds upon four steps to generate data on the electricity consumption and carbon
footprint of PoS-systems and additional data to develop metrics for a valid comparison between the
systems.

In the first step, we analyze the selected PoS-systems and their minimum hardware requirements. The
hardware requirements are an indicator of the hardware composition of the network. We use this
information and additional hardware data from PassMark to select and obtain hardware that we use
to measure a single node's electricity consumption.

In the second step, we estimate the electricity usage of a single node and provide upper and lower
bounds for the networks. We start by running the software on all obtained hardware devices and
measure their single electricity consumption while running the network and while idling. We also
measure other data points to be able to evaluate additional metrics. These values allow us to produce
reasonable upper and lower bounds for running a single node, as our hardware is selected accordingly.

In the third step, we estimate the electricity consumption of the complete network. Firstly, we collect
information about the size of the network, as the node count significantly influences the amount of
electricity consumed. Secondly, we develop a weighting between the single hardware devices for each
network. Lastly, we multiply the electricity consumption of the weighed nodes by the number of nodes
in the network. In case the distribution of nodes for all networks is available, we use the respective
carbon intensity factors of the regions to calculate the carbon footprint of the respective network.
Otherwise, we rely on an average global carbon intensity factor.

In the fourth step, we analyze the additional data (such as transaction data) to develop additional
metrics to explore energy efficiency in transaction throughput. This allows us to put the electricity
consumption of single networks into perspective with other PoS networks and also other
cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 7

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

4 Proof of Stake systems, hardware requirements, and selected hardware

The six proof of stake networks we selected do not employ identical algorithms and have different
prerequisites in terms of hardware, network size, transaction throughput, and other properties. For
example, some of them support stake-delegation, meaning that one node can stake on behalf of other
entities in the network which do not need to run a machine themselves. While this allows for some
efficiency gains and allows users with lower funds to participate in the revenue generation of staking,
it comes at the price of trustworthiness and decentralization. The first part of this chapter takes a
closer look at the single PoS systems and hardware requirements. In the remaining two parts of the
chapter, we describe the hardware selection for running the nodes and the infrastructure required to
measure electricity consumption.

4.1 Overview of PoS systems and their hardware requirements

The systems previously selected in chapter 3 have different requirements for the hardware of their
network participants. The hardware requirements are partly unspecific: Tezos, for instance, specifies
only the amount of CPU cores required to run their software. For the consumer market, the first two-
core CPU was released in 2005 (Intel® Pentium® Processor Extreme Edition 840 (Intel, 2005)), deeming
almost any CPU released in the last 15 years suitable for running Tezos (although we did not test).
Other networks are more precise or have higher requirements. Solana has the highest requirements
in our sample, requiring 12 cores / 24 threads, 128 GB RAM, and a 2 TB NVMe SSD. Solana also
recommends a specific CPU type (AMD Threadripper Zen3) and states that a node might profit from
using a GPU. It is noteworthy that Polkadot does not provide a minimum hardware requirement but
rather links to a recommended setup. Algorand provides two sets of requirements, one for regular and
one for enterprise nodes, although it remains unclear what is meant by that.

Table 3: Hardware requirements of PoS networks

Name Cardano Polkadot Solana Tezos Avalanche Algorand

CPU 2x2GHz i7-7700k 12x2.8GHz 2 cores > 2GHz 4 / 16 cores
RAM 8 GB 64 GB 128 GB 8 GB 6 GB 4-8 / 24 GB
Storage 30 GB 80-160 GB 2TB 100 GB 200 GB 100 / 500 GB
SSD/NVMe N/A NVMe NVMe SSD N/A SSD
(Algorand
Source (IOHK, 2021) (Polkadot, 2021) (Solana, 2021) (Heng, 2020) (Minchev, 2021) Foundation,
2021)

4.2 Hardware selection

Based on the hardware requirements outlined in the previous section, we define three separate
categories of hardware requirements:

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 8

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

• Low hardware requirements: Cardano, Tezos, Avalanche, and Algorand specify 2 to 4 CPU
cores, 4-8 GB RAM, and under 200 GB. These requirements are somewhat imprecise. However,
this hints that computational power is not a concern for these systems, and users should be
comfortable running the software on any system they have available. All of these networks
(except for Cardano) recommend using low-energy hardware such as the well-known
Raspberry Pi for running nodes within the respective networks. 4-8 GB RAM and 200 GB of
storage (even an SSD) are not uncommon anymore in today's average consumer desktop PC.

• Specific hardware requirements: Polkadot specifies the most precise hardware requirements
with the exact CPU type as well as RAM and storage. While they list it as "Requirements –
Standard Hardware", the description instead clarifies that they meant "We are able to run
Polkadot on this machine". While we use hardware that satisfies Polkadot's requirements, we
also run Polkadot on hardware that does not meet the requirements and include them in our
calculation if they are able to run a node reliably. Nonetheless, hardware requirements
typically give users who intend to run a node an indication about what to expect regarding
demand, influencing their final choice of hardware.

• High hardware requirements: Solana has surprisingly high hardware requirements. The CPU,
RAM, and storage requirements are at the highest level of standard desktop computers
(besides servers). They mention that the AMD Threadripper Zen3 family is famous among the
community. They also mention that graphic cards could be required in the future, which hints
at the immense required processing power.

Based on the hardware requirements, both an upper and a lower bound of hardware are evident. For
the lower bound, as of the popularity of the Raspberry Pi computers is high within all communities
(and outside), we select a Raspberry Pi 4 Model B with 8 GB RAM and 128 GB SD-card as the lower
bound. We opt for an official Raspberry Pi full kit, including fan and power supply.

Solana's hardware requirements define the upper bound. We opt for an average system within the
Threadripper specifications consisting of an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, 32C/64T, 256 GB RAM
(DDR4-3600), and a Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB. As the processor does not have an onboard graphics
processor, we need a graphics card. However, as a graphics card is not required at that time, we opt
for a card that does not support CUDA and cannot participate in the calculations of Solana or any other
network. We select an appropriate mainboard as well as a power supply.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 9

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

The upper and lower bounds highly deviate from each other in terms of computational power and
electricity consumption. Further, the two computers may not capture the complete picture of the
hardware used within these networks. Therefore, we decided to add three additional computers to
ensure a well-balanced set of hardware for electricity consumption measurements.

As there are millions of different computer configurations, thousands of variables, and other factors
that influence the electricity consumption of devices, we opt for one key variable and derive other
specifications of the system from it: The central processing unit (CPU). Nonetheless, also the CPU has
several variables as the number of cores, threads, speed, turbo speed, thermal design power (TDP),
and others. Further, identical variables do not necessarily lead to the same computational power or
electricity consumption. To get an in-depth view and understanding of the CPU landscape, we obtain
a data set from PassMark. PassMark provides a software suite able to benchmark varying types of
hardware, including CPUs. The obtained data set contains over 3,100 CPU models as well as over
1 million results of their benchmarking suite (Passmark Software, 2021). Based on this data set, we
select three CPUs to derive our final configurations. We thereby aim at three categories of
performance (high, mid, and low) and select a CPU with the average efficiency for their class. A detailed
description of our approach to select CPUs can be found in Appendix A.

For the high-tier (configuration 4), we identified the Intel Core i5-10400F as being closest to the
average efficiency. As Intel's F-models only have a deactivated onboard graphics chip (Intel, 2021), we
decided to opt for the non-F variant, as otherwise, a dedicated GPU would add unnecessary electricity
consumption to the system. The non-F variant is almost identical to the F variant regards to
benchmarking results. We opted for 32 GB DDR4 RAM and a Samsung 970 Evo Plus 512 GB NVMe SSD
to complement the system. Mainboard, power supply unit, and case have been selected appropriately.

The Intel Core i5-8400T has the best fit for the average electricity consumption in the mid-tier section
(configuration 3). The T-model means the CPU has a "power-optimized lifestyle", resulting in lower
performance and less electricity consumption. We could not directly obtain the CPU in the market and
instead opted for a completed build: The Lenovo ThinkCentre M720q Tiny 10T8S3KD00. Besides the
processor as mentioned above, it includes a 256 GB SSD as well as 8 GB RAM.

In the low-tier section (configuration 2), we identify the Intel Core i3-8109U as the processor with an
average energy efficiency for its class. The U-label refers to a "Mobile power-efficient" CPU but is
nonetheless included in MiniPCs. To our knowledge, this CPU was never sold separately on the
consumer market but is available in Intel's NUC series. We obtain the Intel NUC Kit NUC8i3BEK2
Barebone and augment it with the Samsung 970 Evo Plus 512 GB NVMe SSD as well as 8 GB RAM.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 10

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

We consider our selection as representative to provide a balanced set of hardware for electricity
measurements with these five computers. As an operating system, we use for all our devices Ubuntu
Server 20.04, except for configuration 4. Due to driver issues, we had to opt for Ubuntu Server 21.
Table 4 displays an overview of the hardware configurations. Other factors than CPU are also relevant
for the electricity consumption of the systems. Nonetheless, this set of hardware yields a broad
overview of used hardware within such networks.

Table 4: Overview of selected hardware from lowest to highest requirement

Category 1 2 3 4 5
Broadcom
CPU Intel i3-8109U Intel i5-8400T Intel i5-10400 AMD 3970X
BCM2711
Architecture ARM x86/x64 x86/x64 x86/x64 x86/x64
RAM 8 GB 8 GB 8 GB 32 GB 256 GB
Storage 128 SD 512 SSD 256 SSD 512 SSD 2 TB SSD
GPU Onboard Onboard Onboard Onboard AMD 6970
PSU USB-C 65 Watt 65 Watt 650 Watt 1000 Watt
Case Integrated Integrated Integrated Custom Custom
OS Ubuntu 20.04 Ubuntu 20.04 Ubuntu 20.04 Ubuntu 21 Ubuntu 20.04

4.3 Infrastructure for electricity measurements

For the measurement of the electricity consumption, we use five Mystrom WiFi Switch which measure
the electricity consumption as well the room temperature and provide them over a REST interface.
The electricity measurements are made in Munich, Germany in a separate basement room with near-
constant room temperature. The average room temperature during the measurement period was
between 18°C and 22°C.

All devices were equipped with the same software, a new Ubuntu server 20.04/21 installation, and the
monitoring tool Glances (Hennion, 2021) that allows us to collect additional system information such
as temperature or system load.

A separate Raspberry Pi, equipped with a Python script, collected and monitored the five systems and
analyzed the data generated during the runs. All computers are only connected to the power outlet
and LAN. All systems share a 100 Mbit internet connection.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 11

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

5 Electricity consumption of Proof of Stake networks

The definition of the to-be used hardware allows us to establish single node measurements. With these
measurements, we provide upper and lower bounds for the electricity consumption of a single node
and the best guess as a weighted average between the computer devices. On that basis, we establish
the electricity consumption of the respective overall network and discuss additional metrics such as
the electricity use per transaction.

5.1 Single node measurements

After defining and obtaining the hardware required for our analysis, we set up the hardware and install
the node software for the respective network. For that, we use the following process:

- Hardware Setup: We install the node with the respective Linux version, configure Glances and
configure remote access.
- Idle Measurement: We run the idle measurement for the devices without any additional
software installed.
- Node Setup: We download and install the node software and verify the correct installation.
- Node Bootstrap: The single nodes are fully synced, as we do not want to skew the electricity
consumption of the devices, as some might process data faster.
- Electricity Measurement: We shut down the node, start the electricity measurement and then
start the node again. The node runs for 24 hours, as this covers an entire day cycle. Appendix
B contains an overview of every electricity measurement.

To understand what exactly we are measuring, we need to describe the network and its setup. The
network usually consists of nodes, either validators (participating in the consensus protocol and
producing new blocks) or regular full nodes (broadcasting and verifying regular transactions).
Validators are selected to propose new blocks based on their stake. We would differentiate between
full nodes and validators in an ideal setup, as they have slightly different roles and responsibilities
within the network. On the Main net, significant stakes are required to run a validator; on the available
test nets, we were not able to generate blocks due to the low share of the overall stake. Furthermore,
previous research suggests that participating in the PoS consensus mechanism has only a negligible
effect on the device's electricity consumption (Sedlmeir, Buhl, Fridgen, & Keller, 2020). Therefore, we
run our electricity measurement on regular full nodes running on the Main net.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 12

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

5.1.1 Idle electricity consumption

We measure the electricity consumption of the devices idle. Table 5 depicts the minimum, maximum,
median, and quantile 1 and 3 of the electricity consumption for 24 hours. All values are rounded to
one decimal. Interestingly, the setup 2 consumes less electricity than the Raspberry Pi (configuration
1), which we deemed the most energy-efficient solution beforehand.

Table 5: Electricity consumption in Idle measured in Watt [W] – hardware selection for each of the five clusters can be found
in Table 4

1 2 3 4 5
Min [W] 2.3 2.2 2.6 23.5 75.2
Q1 [W] 2.9 2.4 2.7 24.9 76.7
Median [W] 3.1 2.5 2.8 25.4 77.8
Q3 [W] 3.1 2.5 2.8 25.1 77.1
Max [W] 3.3 2.6 2.8 25.5 78.5

5.1.2 Node electricity consumption

Due to the hardware requirements outlined in chapter 4.2, we do not run all networks on all nodes. In
Table 6, we give an overview about which measurements take place on which machines. As we do not
want to enforce the hardware requirements as a strict lower bound, we also test the lower-tier device
if software is available (e.g., due to Raspberry Pi’s architecture, software might not be available).

Table 6: Hardware configurations used for measuring the electricity consumption of networks. (🗸 (yes), ~ (test), 🗶 (no), the
result of the test is given in brackets)

Config. Cardano Polkadot Avalanche Algorand Tezos Solana

1 🗶 🗶 ~ (🗶) ~ (🗸) 🗸 🗶
2 🗸 ~ (🗸) 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗶
3 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗶
4 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗸 ~ (🗶)
5 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗸

We outline challenges that occurred during the electricity measurements for some of the networks.

Due to technical restrictions, we were not able to run all nodes in Avalanche simultaneously
throughout a period of time but had to test [2], [3,4], and [5] hardware separately. The hardware used
for establishing an Internet connection crashed reproducibly when we started five nodes
simultaneously. Therefore, we tested on different days accounting and controlling for the respective
circumstances, such as transaction throughput. Further, PC 1 was not able to catch up to the network,
therefore, we excluded this configuration from our calculations.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 13

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Cardano outlines in its requirements that an IPv4 address is necessary to connect to the network. We
obtained an IPv4 address from our ISP to be able to run fully functional nodes. Due to this limitation,
it can be assumed that a large portion of the network either is deployed on-premise or use hosting
solutions, as anecdotical evidence suggests that a large share of private internet connections only
natively support IPv6 and use Dual Stack Lite for IPv4 services. Future research could look into how this
affects the hardware distribution of the Cardano network.

We also had issues with running Tezos on all five devices for 24 hours. During several runs, some nodes
were unable to continue their work in the network and the CPU utilization dropped to zero percent.
To account for this, we removed the respective timeslot (six hours are missing for computer 4) and
only consider the time the nodes were fully connected and functional.

Solana poses high requirements for the internet connection. The same problems that occurred during
the Avalanche measurements also occurred while running a single node on Solana. Due to that
limitation, we relocated configuration number 5 to a different place with a 1 Gbit internet connection
in which the node worked as expected. Noteworthy: Solana also requires an IPv4 address, but does
not state so in its requirements.

In Table 7, we outline the mean consumption of all networks and nodes.

Table 7: Mean consumption of nodes for the respective network in Watt [W]

1 2 3 4 5
Algorand 5.53 34.89 32.23 69.95 168.59
Avalanche N/A 23.44 24.03 57.34 144.67
Cardano N/A 3.90 3.70 27.56 84.47
Polkadot N/A 4.31 5.35 29.25 107.86
Tezos 4.86 19.25 19.74 52.41 141.65
Solana N/A N/A N/A N/A 221.33

Two currencies are very close to each other in terms of the electricity consumption of the single nodes.
Cardano and Polkadot only deviate within the range of +/- 10 % of each other throughout all hardware
configurations. On the other hand, Algorand seems to consume most throughout the networks that
support all devices. The Raspberry Pi (configuration 1) seems to be running at almost maximum
capacity, consuming 5.5 watts. Also for configuration 2 and 3, Algorand consumes up to the factor of
9 compared to other cryptocurrencies such as Cardano and Polkadot. Tezos is in between these two
groups. It consumes up to factor 5 of the low-energy blockchains, but only about 50% of Algorands
consumption. Solana is different due to its high hardware requirements. It only runs on configuration

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 14

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

5 and consumes the most out of any network-device combination with over 220 watts while running.
Avalanche consumes electricity similar to Tezos while not supporting configuration 5.

5.2 Calculation of bounds for electricity consumption

To calculate the electricity consumption of the overall networks, we need to understand the average
calculation for a single node. We measured the electricity consumption for five different computers.
With these measurements, we can provide upper bounds, meaning the highest electricity that a node
consumes, lower bounds, the least electricity a node consumes, and a best guess that captures the
consumption of the average node best for the respective network.

5.2.1 Upper and lower bound

The upper and lower bound are measured by the least efficient and most efficient hardware,
respectively. The lower bound therefore is constituted by the Raspberry Pi (configuration 1) for
Algorand and Tezos. Configuration 2 is used for Avalanche, Cardano, and Polkadot as a lower bound.
Configuration 5 serves both as the lower bound for Solana and as an upper bound for all currencies, as
for Solana only one device is available. The respective upper and lower bounds are displayed in Table
8.

Table 8: Overview of lower and upper bounds for the respective network per single node

Lower bound Lower bound Upper bound Upper bound

[watts] [kWh / year] [watts] [kWh / year]
Algorand 5.53 48.47 168.59 1,476.81
Avalanche 23.44 205.33 144.67 1,267.31
Cardano 3.90 34.15 84.47 740.00
Polkadot 4,31 37.72 107.86 944.88
Tezos 4.86 42.58 141.65 1,240.89
Solana N/A N/A 221.33 1,938.85

5.2.2 Best guess

The electricity consumption of an average node in the networks is challenging to estimate. There is no
empirical data on the concrete hardware that nodes are running on or indicating user's preferences.
For node owners, several factors are relevant for their decision on which hardware to run their node
on. First, owners stake tokens to receive rewards and want their revenue to be stable, aiming for
hardware designed for long-term operations. Second, due to the profit structure, they do not intend
to spend all their revenue on hardware and might rather opt for sufficient hardware within the
hardware requirements. These thoughts might influence their decision in one way or another but
might not directly translate to a hardware selection. Therefore, we opt for a binomial distribution for

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 15

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

the hardware selection, based on a regular distribution for key questions. The distribution for each
hardware type is displayed in Table 9.

Table 9: Overview of node distribution for the six networks

1 2 3 4 5

Nodes Algorand, Tezos 6.25 % 25.00 % 37.50 % 25.00 % 6.25 %

Nodes Avalanche, Cardano, Polkadot N/A 12.50 % 37.50 % 37.50 % 12.50 %
Nodes Solana N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 %

With this distribution, we calculate the weighted electricity consumption of an average node:

∑ 𝑎𝑣𝑔𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖 ∗ 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑖
𝑖 ∈ ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒

An average node in the networks consumes from 22.77 watts for Cardano to 221.33 watts for Solana.
This difference of over factor 13 implies that not only the number of nodes are relevant for the
electricity consumption of PoS networks, but also the underlying software and its requirements. Table
10 gives an overview about the best guess electricity consumption for every network.

Table 10: Overview of best guess estimates per single node

Best guess [watts] Best guess [kWh / year]

Algorand 49.18 430.82
Avalanche 51.53 451.40
Cardano 22.77 199.45
Polkadot 27.00 236.49
Tezos 34.47 302.00
Solana 221.33 1,938.85

Additionally, we display the electricity consumption estimates for the upper and lower bound as well
as the best guess for each network in Figure 1.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 16

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Figure 1: Overview of lower bound, upper bound and best guess estimates for a single node of the respective network in watts

5.3 Electricity consumption of the networks

We apply our lower bound, upper bound as well as our best guess at the number of nodes in the
respective networks. We obtain the number of nodes from the respective block explorers. Appendix C
gives an overview of all data sources. The results are depicted in Table 11.

Table 11: Overview of electricity consumption of the respective networks applying the best guess estimate

Node count Electricity intensity network [W] Consumption / day [kWh] Consumption / year [kWh]
Algorand 1,190 58,524.08 1,404.58 512,670.92
Avalanche 1,084 55,858.52 1,340.58 489,311.19
Cardano 3,002 68,351.08 1,640.43 598,755.44
Polkadot 297 8,018.01 192.43 70,237.76
Tezos 375 12,928.06 310.27 113,249.81
Solana 1,015 224,649.62 5,391.59 1,967,930.68

The electricity consumption of the networks amounts from 70 to 1,967 MWh annually in our best
guess, Polkadot with the lowest electricity consumption and Solana with the highest electricity
consumption in the field. These results imply that there is a factor of more than 28 between the
electricity consumptions of the different networks, hinting at the respective carbon footprint. Figure 2
gives an overview of the electricity consumptions of the networks and their respective node count in
comparison.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 17

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Figure 2: Electricity consumption per year [kWh] and count of nodes of the respective networks

5.4 Electricity consumption per transaction

An often-used metric in comparing electricity consumption between systems is the electricity
consumption per transaction. This allows comparing systems that have different architectures,
transaction throughput, and electricity requirements. Nonetheless, companies that want to report
emissions associated with cryptocurrency expose should not use a transaction-based allocation
approach and should rely on other methodologies (Gallersdörfer, Klaaßen, & Stoll, 2021).

The complexity of this metric is based on the fact that some systems provide a theoretical electricity
consumption per transaction, simulating the network at full speed. Other calculations are based on
transaction rates measured in the networks, making comparisons skewed. Further, the definition of a
transaction might vary from network to network.

An additional complexity is the attribution of the electricity consumption solely to the transactions.
The system requires a base electricity consumption to keep up with the consensus without providing
any transactions. Nonetheless, given the base load of a network, running a node in a "low-transaction"-
period might yield higher electricity per transaction costs than usually to be expected. While this metric
provides a straightforward insight into different protocols, its base assumptions need to be understood
and its results must be treated with care.

As we measured the electricity consumption of our nodes in real-world scenarios, we also apply the
transaction numbers that took place during the respective time periods. As we sometimes have
different time slots for when we tested our hardware (for Avalanche and Tezos), we also apply the

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 18

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

respective transaction rates before we weigh the single nodes for the overall network. Thereby we
also apply the previously described binomial distribution.

Table 12: Best guess electricity consumption of PoS networks on a per-transaction basis. The weighted average of
transactions is the weighted number of transactions that took place on the respective blockchain during our measurements.

Wh/tx per node Wh/tx per network Weighted avg. of tx

Algorand 0.00227 2.70 520,417

Avalanche 0.00439 4.76 276,907
Cardano 0.01718 51.59 32,559
Polkadot 0.05865 17.42 11,037
Tezos 0.11054 41.45 7,033
Solana 0.00016 0.166 32,383,318

The range for the electricity consumption per transaction goes from 0.166 watthours for Solana up to
51.59 watthours for Cardano. As expected, this metric depends on the amount of transactions taking
place on the respective blockchain, also the overall electricity consumption per transaction further
depends on the number of nodes connected to the respective network. Generally, these numbers are
expected to go down with an increase in the transaction rate, regardless which blockchain is in use.

5.5 Carbon footprint of PoS networks

The electricity consumption of any system has no direct environmental impact, as mere usage does
not cause any harm. However, the indirect impacts due to the carbon intensity of the underlying
energy sources used for electricity consumption do cause damage to the environment and need to be
considered for sustainable business operations.

Depending on the underlying energy sources, the respective carbon footprint of electricity
consumption can vary. For a precise estimate of the carbon footprint, two pieces of data are essential:
The location of the electricity consumers as well as the carbon intensity of the respective grid.

There are several ways for local electricity consumers to ensure that their energy is carbon neutral and
has no displacement effect, meaning that other local electricity consumers are pushed from
sustainable energy into fossil fuels. Corporate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), unbundled energy
attribute certificates (EACs), or off-grid electricity production for self-consumption are ways to ensure
that an entity is carbon-neutral from an electricity consumption perspective. As these are instruments
aimed at energy-intensive industries or large corporations, we do not assume that any node relies on
such methodologies and apply an average grid intensity factor.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 19

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Previous research localized nodes in other protocols by relying on internet search machines aimed at
ASIC devices, IP addresses, or pool addresses. These approaches allowed for an estimate of how the
nodes are distributed worldwide. Unfortunately, structured data on the location of nodes in all
networks is not available.

Due to the absence of such data, we rely on the average grid intensity worldwide. A formula to
calculate the respective carbon footprint is shown.

∑ 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖 ∗ 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑖 ∈ 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒

We assume the carbon intensity of the grid to be 475 g CO2e/kWh. We derive this value from the
International Energy Agency (IEA) Global Energy & CO2e Status Report (International Energy Agency,
2018). With that, we can derive the carbon footprint of all networks. The respective values are depicted
in Table 13 and in Figure 3.

Table 13: Overview of CO2e emissions of the networks on an annual basis

CO2e emissions / year [t] Lower bound Upper bound Best guess

Algorand 27.40 834.77 243.52

Avalanche 105.74 652.54 232.42
Cardano 48.69 1055.20 284.41
Polkadot 5.32 133.30 33.63
Tezos 7.58 221.03 53.79
Solana N/A 934.77 934.77

Figure 3: Carbon emissions per year [in tonnes] of each network for lower bound, upper bound and best guess estimate.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 20

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

6 Discussion and comparison of results

In the previous chapters, we introduced our methodology and conducted measurements to derive the
electricity consumption and carbon footprint of six Proof of Stake networks. In this chapter, we
contextualize the results of our work.

6.1 Yearly electricity consumption in the context of other systems

The electricity consumption of a single network is often meaningless without a context to compare the
system. In chapter 5, we outline that the yearly electricity consumption of the networks range from
70,000 kWh to roughly 1,900,000 kWh. An average US household consumes about 10,600 kWh per
year and therefore, the least electricity consuming network Polkadot consumes about 6.6 times the
electricity and the most electricity consuming network Solana about 200 times the electricity (U.S.
Energy Information Administration, 2021). In comparison to the decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin,
PoS networks consume less than 0.001 % of the Bitcoin network assuming 89.78 TWh on the 21st
August 2021 (CBECI, 2021). Bitcoin consumes much more electricity than any Proof of Stake system
due to its Proof of Work consensus mechanism, resulting in the deployment of energy-intensive
hardware. In Figure 4 , we compare the Bitcoin network, the Ethereum network assuming 17.3 TWh
on the 21st August 2021d, the PoS networks, and the average US household.

Figure 4: Yearly electricity consumption for Bitcoin, Ethereum, Proof of Stake networks Polkadot, Tezos, Avalanche, Algorand,
Cardano and Solana, and an average US household in kWh. Logarithmic scale.

d
We used the methodology outlined in (Gallersdörfer et al., 2020) and applied it to the respective date.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 21

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

6.2 Electricity consumption per transaction

In chapter 5, we also calculate the electricity costs per transaction for each network. We compare
these numbers to other approaches such as Visa, Bitcoin and Ethereum. Visa consumes about 1.5 Wh
per transaction, while Bitcoin consumes about 1722.24 kWh per transaction (Statista, 2021). We obtain
the figure 37 kWh per transaction from own calculations based on (Gallersdörfer et al., 2020). Figure
5 gives a comparison of these systems. Generally, it is not surprising that a centralized system like Visa
is more energy-efficient than a decentralized system. Due to the difference in the amount of
computational hardware and distribution worldwide, most systems must consume more electricity.
Due to its Proof of Work (PoW), Bitcoin and Ethereum consume much more on an overall and on a per-
transaction basis.

Figure 5: Electricity consumption [Wh] per transaction for Bitcoin, Ethereum, Visa, and all PoS systems. Logarithmic scale.

6.3 The carbon footprint of Proof of Stake networks

Overall, the emissions of the PoS networks are very low. As outlined in Chapter 5, the networks emit
from 33.36 for Polkadot to 934.77 tonnes for Solana of CO2e yearly. For example, nine round trips from
Munich (MUC) to San Francisco (SFO) in business class emit about the same amount of carbon dioxide
(MyClimate, 2021) produced by the Tezos network. It can be assumed that the carbon emissions of
companies behind these networks are higher than the emissions from the networks itself. Figure 6
compares the carbon footprints of the six networks to each other and to a roundtrip MUC – SFO in
business class.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 22

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Figure 6: Yearly carbon footprint of PoS networks compared to a roundtrip flight in business class

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 23

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

7 Conclusion

In this report, we outline an approach for calculating the electricity consumption and carbon footprint
of six Proof of Stake networks, namely Algorand, Avalanche, Cardano, Polkadot, Tezos, and Solana. We
selected hardware, made measurements of the protocols, and calculated the respective metrics. We
discussed our results and introduced several other key metrics, such as the Bitcoin and Ethereum
network for comparison.

Our best guess estimates the yearly electricity consumption of the Proof of Stake networks from 70
MWh for Polkadot to 1,967 MWh for Solana. This results in carbon footprints between 33 and 934
tonnes of CO2e annually, respectively. Compared to other electricity consumers such as an average US
household, these networks consumes up to 200 times more electricity, and produce up to 153 times
the amount of an intercontinental roundtrip flight.

Given the continuous development and evolution of Proof of Stake networks, our results can only be
taken as a snapshot of the respective timeframe. Further measurements and analyses are required to
update and further enhance the validity of the metrics for electricity consumption and carbon footprint
of Proof of Stake and other networks. Additionally, other networks employing different consensus
mechanisms as well as second layer networks need to be taken into account to gain a holistic picture
of the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies and tokens.

In recent years, Bitcoin has faced harsh criticism for its electricity demand and carbon emissions. In the
public, these fears and accusations have often been applied to other blockchain protocols, regardless
of their technical foundations or capabilities, harming the adoption of blockchain protocols in the
industry, public sector, and private investors. Based on the total emissions calculated for these six
networks, one may conclude that Proof of Stake-based blockchain protocols consume an amount of
electricity that does not justify the discussions about their environmental footprints. Instead, an
extensive perspective, including corporate footprints and the ecosystem, must be taken. For
practitioners selecting a PoS blockchain protocol, other factors such as decentralization, network
throughput or functionality (e.g., Smart Contracts) should increase in relevance as decision criteria.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 24

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

8 References

Algorand Foundation. (2021). Algorand Network Architecture. Retrieved from

https://algorand.foundation/algorand-protocol/network
CBECI. (2021). Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index. Retrieved from https://cbeci.org
de Vries, A. (2021). Bitcoin boom: What rising prices mean for the network’s energy consumption.
Joule, 5(3), 509-513.
Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., & Stoll, C. (2020). Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies beyond
bitcoin. Joule, 4(9), 1843-1846.
Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., & Stoll, C. (2021). Accounting for carbon emissions caused by
cryptocurrency and token systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.06477.
Heng, C. (2020). Guide to Using the Tezos-node Part I: Setting Up a Node. Retrieved from
https://www.tezos.org.sg/guide-to-setting-up-a-tezos-node/
Hennion, N. (2021). Glances - An eye on your system. Retrieved from
https://github.com/nicolargo/glances
Intel. (2005). Intel® Pentium® Processor Extreme Edition 840 Retrieved from
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27613/intel-pentium-processor-
extreme-edition-840-2m-cache-3-20-ghz-800-mhz-fsb.html
Intel. (2021). Intel® Processor Names and Numbers. Retrieved from
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html
International Energy Agency. (2018). Global Energy & CO2 Status Report. Retrieved from
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/23f9eb39-7493-4722-aced-
61433cbffe10/Global_Energy_and_CO2_Status_Report_2018.pdf
IOHK. (2021). Cardano Mainnet - Stake Pool Minimum System Requirements Retrieved from
https://iohk.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/900001951586-Stake-Pool-Minimum-System-
Requirements
King, S., & Nadal, S. (2012). Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake. self-published
paper, August, 19(1).
Minchev, R. (2021). Technical Requirements for Running a Validator Node on Avalanche. Retrieved
from https://support.avax.network/en/articles/4064879-technical-requirements-for-
running-a-validator-node-on-avalanche
MyClimate. (2021). Carbon Footprint calculator. Retrieved from
https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new
Passmark Software. (2021). Hardware & Software Market Trends. Retrieved from
https://www.passmark.com/services/market-analysis.php
Polkadot. (2021). Run a Validator. Retrieved from https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/maintain-
guides-how-to-validate-polkadot
Sedlmeir, J., Buhl, H. U., Fridgen, G., & Keller, R. (2020). The energy consumption of blockchain
technology: beyond myth. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 62(6), 599-608.
Solana. (2021). Validator Requirements. Retrieved from https://docs.solana.com/running-
validator/validator-reqs
Statista. (2021). Bitcoin average energy consumption per transaction compared to that of VISA as of
August 16, 2021 Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-
consumption-transaction-comparison-visa/
Stoll, C., Klaaßen, L., & Gallersdörfer, U. (2019). The carbon footprint of bitcoin. Joule, 3(7), 1647-
1661.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2021). How much electricity does an American home use?
Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 25

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Appendix A: Hardware Selection

We use the Passmark CPU Benchmark Dataset. Our methodology to select three CPUs consists of the
following steps:

1. The data set contains many processor types that are not relevant to us. We filter out:

1. CPUs with less than 50 benchmarking results, as we expect that they are not relevant for
the validator community.

2. CPUs that were released before 1/1/2015, as we consider less usage of outdated hardware
and a practical reason: We cannot buy these CPUs in the market.

3. CPUs with missing or incomplete data.

4. CPUs of AMD. Intel is the dominating manufacturer of CPUs with over 80 % market share
over the last years. Not all values in the data set are consistent between both producers,
and already one AMD system is included in our data set. Therefore we decided not to
consider AMD processors.

5. CPUs intended for servers or notebooks. We think that the share of server hardware is low
and notebooks nonexistent. Some CPUs are marked as "Laptop only" in our dataset;
however, we find them included in MiniPCs, e.g., the Intel NUC. To account for these CPUs,
we consulted geizhals.de as a source of CPU models sold within MiniPCs and did not
remove them from the data set.

2. After obtaining a cleaned data set, we can separate the data set into three equally large
categories for later selection: High-level, mid-level, and low-level. While the hardware within
the networks might not be equally distributed among these three categories, this approach
allows us to shift the allocation for single networks between the devices depending on their
hardware requirements.

3. We are confronted with the fact that older, high-level CPU models might have the same
computational power as recent low-level CPU models but different energy efficiencies, leading
to entirely different results. Therefore, we introduce an additional variable in our data set
called energy efficiency. The energy efficiency of a processor is the average benchmarking
result divided by the TDP. The TDP serves as a proxy for a processor's energy demand
capabilities, as it describes the maximum amount of heat measured in Watts the CPU cooling
system has to deal with.

4. This variable allows us to calculate the average energy efficiency for each category of CPUs (4-
high/3-mid/2-low) and select an average processor from the respective tier. This approach
ensures that we a) cover three different performance categories and b) select an average
energy efficiency for their respective class.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 26

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Appendix B: Electricity Measurements of Single Nodes

All electricity measurements are conducted in Watt.

Algorand
Table 14: Electricity Consumption while running Algorand measured in Watt [W]

1 2 3 4 5
Min [W] 4.4 6.9 10.8 27 87.8
Q1 [W] 5.3 35.4 23 55.5 150.5
Mean [W] 5.5 34.9 32.2 70 168.6
Median [W] 5.5 38 29.7 70.4 169.9
Q3 [W] 5.8 38.5 43.3 85.2 186.1
Max [W] 7.5 40.2 51.6 118.9 232.2

Avalanche
Table 15: Electricity Consumption while running Avalanche measured in Watt [W]

1 2 3 4 5
Min [W] N/A 3.6 5.0 24.4 80.1
Q1 [W] N/A 14.8 14.5 38.6 128.1
Mean [W] N/A 20.4 19.6 49.4 138.1
Median [W] N/A 23.4 24.0 57.3 144.7
Q3 [W] N/A 36.8 35.5 81.6 166.7
Max [W] N/A 45.1 48.7 94.7 196.1

Cardano
Table 16: Electricity Consumption while running Cardano measured in Watt [W]

1 2 3 4 5
Min [W] N/A 2.5 2.7 24.3 75.9
Q1 [W] N/A 2.9 2.9 26.4 80
Mean [W] N/A 3.9 3.7 27.6 84.5
Median [W] N/A 3 3 26.8 81.2
Q3 [W] N/A 3.3 3.5 27.1 83.4
Max [W] N/A 36.7 31.5 69.6 150.6

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 27

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Polkadot
Table 17: Electricity Consumption while running Polkadot measured in Watt [W]

1 2 3 4 5
Min [W] N/A 2.36 3 23.4 77.9
Q1 [W] N/A 3.5 4.4 26.1 91
Mean [W] N/A 4.3 5.3 29.3 107.9
Median [W] N/A 4 5.1 27 116.5
Q3 [W] N/A 4.7 6 30.6 118.1
Max [W] N/A 28.2 19.9 55.2 144

Tezos

Table 18: Electricity Consumption while running Tezos measured in Watt [W]

1 2 3 4 5
Min [W] 3.5 8.7 11.6 28 123
Q1 [W] 4.5 16.8 17.7 48.5 140.3
Mean [W] 4.9 19.3 19.7 52.4 141.7
Median [W] 4.8 19.2 19.9 55.4 141.8
Q3 [W] 5.2 21.8 22.2 57.2 143.3
Max [W] 6.8 33.2 29.4 69.4 158.9

Solana

Table 19: Electricity Consumption while running Solana measured in Watt [W]

1 2 3 4 5
Min [W] N/A N/A N/A N/A 164.3
Q1 [W] N/A N/A N/A N/A 204.1
Mean [W] N/A N/A N/A N/A 221.3
Median [W] N/A N/A N/A N/A 217.9
Q3 [W] N/A N/A N/A N/A 233.5
Max [W] N/A N/A N/A N/A 329.5

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 28

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

Appendix C: Data sources for single networks

All market capitalizations are taken from https://coinmarketcap.com.
Algorand Information
Measurement period 2021-08-16 08:28:19 to 2021-08-17 08:28:10
Number of nodes https://metrics.algorand.org/ ➔ “Decentralization”
Transaction Count https://algoexplorer.io/top-statistics ➔ “Transaction Metrics” ➔ “Total Transactions”
Software version go-algorand 2.8.0 (https://github.com/algorand/go-algorand)

Avalanche Information
[PC2]: 2021-10-19 21:54:52 to 2021-10-20 21:54:52
Measurement period [PC3,PC4]: 2021-10-20 23:24:13 to 2021-10-21 23:24:52
[PC5]: 2021-10-22 00:16:11 to 2021-10-23 00:15:59
Number of nodes https://explorer.avax.network/validators ➔ “Validators”
P-Chain / X-Chain : https://explorer.avax.network/tx ➔ counted tx with API
Transaction count
P-Chain: https://snowtrace.io/chart/tx ➔ Weighted count
Software version avalanchego 1.6.2 (https://github.com/ava-labs/avalanchego)

Cardano Information
Measurement period 2021-08-07 00:01:02 to 2021-08-08 00:35:26
Number of nodes https://cardanoscan.io/ ➔ “Total stake pools”
https://explorer.bitquery.io/cardano/transactions?from=2021-08-01&till=2021-08-31
Transaction count
➔ “Transactions By Date”
Software version cardano-node 1.27.0 (https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-node)

Polkadot Information
Measurement period 2021-08-28 12:59:26 to 2021-08-29 12:58:06
Number of nodes https://polkadot.subscan.io/validator ➔ “Validators”
Transaction count https://polkadot.subscan.io/transfer ➔ “Transaction history”
Software version polkadot 0.9.9 (https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot)

Tezos Information
[PC1,PC2,PC3,PC5]: 2021-08-22 17:17:44 to 2021-08-23 17:17:24
Measurement period
[PC4]: 2021-08-24 22:52:57 to 2021-08-25 17:19:51 (missing hours accounted for)
Number of nodes https://tzstats.com/bakers ➔ “Bakers”
https://api.tzstats.com/series/block.json for respective time frames, see
Transaction count
https://tzstats.com/docs/api#time-series-endpoints, used “n_tx”
Software version tezos 10.0.0 (https://gitlab.com/tezos/tezos)

Solana Information
Measurement period 2021-09-09 16:58:18 to 2021-09-10 16:57:15
Number of nodes https://solanabeach.io ➔ “Validators”
https://explorer.solana.com/ ➔ “Live transaction stats” ➔ “TPS history” averaged over respective period.
Transaction count Additionally, subtracted for “votes” operations by crawling 202 random blocks from the respective period
using https://solanabeach.io/ and subtracted the average share of votes (78.2 %).
Software version solana 1.6.21 (https://github.com/solana-labs/solana)

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 29

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute
 Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of Proof of Stake Blockchain Protocols

About CCRI

The Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute (CCRI) provides carbon estimates for investments in
cryptocurrencies and technologies such as Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies (DLT). We
have built a multi-year research track record with a specific focus on Bitcoin and its environmental
impacts. We published comprehensive and formerly peer-reviewed studies on Bitcoin's carbon
footprint in the renowned scientific journals. Our research has been covered by major media outlets,
such as CNN and The New York Times, and has been appraised as very good estimate by major
organizations, such as the IEA.

Ulrich Gallersdörfer
Ulrich Gallersdörfer is a research associate in the Department of Informatics at the Technical University
of Munich. His research focuses on identity management in blockchains. His interest extends to further
aspects of the technology, ranging from environmental implications to data analytics applications.

Lena Klaaßen
Lena Klaaßen has a background in Management and Technology with a particular focus on finance,
power engineering and energy markets. She has conducted research on carbon accounting in the
corporate and cryptocurrency space at TUM and MIT. She now focuses on research in the field of
climate finance at ETH Zurich.

Dr. Christian Stoll

Christian Stoll conducts research at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at the Center for Energy Markets of the Technical University
of Munich. His research focuses on the implications of climate change from an economic point of view.

Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute 2022 30

CCRI
Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute