The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance has estimated Ethereum’s annual electricity consumption at 7.87 gigawatt-hours. That equals a continuous power demand of about 0.90 megawatts. The study places Ethereum near the lower end of energy intensity among major proof-of-stake blockchains when researchers adjust electricity use for market value. Cambridge also estimated annual emissions of about 2.37 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Summary
- Ethereum ranks second-lowest in market-value-adjusted energy intensity among the major proof-of-stake networks Cambridge studied globally.
- Cambridge measured 8,522 nodes and calculated electricity demand of roughly 105 watts per node.
- The Merge cut Ethereum’s power demand by over 99.9%, leaving grid sources to drive emissions.
Ethereum used more electricity in absolute terms than most networks included in the comparison. Solana ranked highest at about 13.48 GWh each year, while Ethereum ranked second. However, Ethereum consumed about 33 kilowatt-hours for every $1 million of market value. That was the second-lowest rate measured, behind BNB Chain. Solana recorded about 283 kWh per $1 million, or roughly 8.5 times Ethereum’s rate. The networks in Cambridge’s top-tier PoS comparison used 38 GWh combined. NEAR, Tron and TON ranged from 3.6 to 5.1 GWh, while Cardano and BNB Chain stayed below 1 GWh.
Direct node tests shape the estimate
Cambridge built the estimate from direct power measurements rather than applying one assumed figure to every node. Researchers tested 20 combinations of Ethereum’s main execution and consensus software clients on two hardware setups. A lighter residential system drew a median of 18 watts. A workstation used for professional deployments drew about 152 watts. The study calculated a network-weighted average of roughly 105 watts per node.
The researchers identified 8,522 discoverable full nodes. Around 36% operated on residential hardware, while 64% ran in cloud or enterprise data centers. The United States hosted 31% of the nodes, followed by Germany at 16%, Finland at 8%, and France at 6%. Cambridge said those four countries together accounted for nearly 62% of the full-node network measured.
Grid mix now drives Ethereum’s emissions
Ethereum’s electricity sources now shape most of its remaining carbon footprint. Cambridge estimated that renewable energy supplied 39.4% of the network’s power and nuclear energy supplied 17%. Together, those sources accounted for 56.4%. Fossil fuels supplied the remaining 43.6%, with natural gas representing the largest single source at 27.7%. The final emissions estimate depended on the electricity grids serving each node location.
Alexander Neumüller, research lead at Cambridge’s digital assets energy program, said, “Under Proof-of-Stake, electricity is no longer the price of security.” Ethereum replaced proof-of-work mining with validators during the Merge on September 15, 2022. Cambridge estimated that continuous power demand fell from about 2.4 gigawatts before the transition to 0.90 megawatts afterward, a reduction of more than 99.9%.
Crypto.news coverage tracks the PoS shift
Related crypto.news coverage has described proof-of-stake as a lower-energy alternative because validators secure networks through staked assets instead of competitive mining. A January 2026 report also quoted Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse saying proof-of-stake systems use about 99.9% less energy than proof-of-work networks. The new Cambridge figures provide updated hardware and hosting data for Ethereum several years after its transition.
The report does not claim that Ethereum uses the least electricity among all proof-of-stake networks. Its annual total remains higher than most peers studied. Its stronger ranking appears only after researchers divide energy use by market value. Cambridge also avoided a per-transaction estimate because about 92% of Ethereum ecosystem transactions now settle on scaling networks, making a mainnet-only calculation incomplete. Cambridge said lighter stateless verification could lower hardware requirements, but wider node participation could offset those savings. The report treats future demand as uncertain rather than assuming efficiency gains will reduce total use.
