#Nft energy consumption drivers#
#Nft energy consumption verification#

In short, the minting, transfer and even the sheer existence of NFTs require a lot of energy. To this regard, Deloitte obtained relevant equipment and node operational information from the survey to estimate the energy consumption by each node type, and then extrapolated the energy consumption for 10% of the remaining nodes considering relevant quantification guidance for GHG emissions reporting per the GHG Protocol.If a tailor-made smart contract would have been employed, this number would have been ten times higher. The selection of different acceptable measurement techniques can result in materially different measurements due to varying precision of different techniques. Energy consumption and GHG emissions data are subject to inherent limitations of accuracy given the nature and the methods used for determining such data. To estimate energy and emissions, Deloitte Canada surveyed node operators and received data for 90% of the node population.

#Nft energy consumption verification#

In addition, the seven execution nodes only require seven machines, reducing the impact of the baseline 60 watts of power from additional hardware.ĭeloitte Canada’s assessment focused on Flow’s blockchain 2021 electricity consumption for node operations (execution, consensus, collection and verification nodes), and thus related Scope 2 emissions drawing on the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol. These nodes perform less intensive work than execution nodes but have a larger population resulting in higher consumption.

#Nft energy consumption drivers#

The primary drivers of the energy usage are collection and consensus nodes. And because of this architecture, the overall energy use of the network won’t increase significantly even if the activity increases by 100 times or more, making the per-transaction energy footprint decrease over time, Dapper Labs said. In addition to operating on a Proof of Stake consensus system, Flow’s unique multi-role node architecture securely divides the processing between specialized node types, making the network significantly more efficient than other blockchain architectures. This is attributed to Flow operating on a Proof of Stake consensus system versus Proof of Work which is generally more energy and carbon intensive.” “Based on our analysis and survey of the network, we discovered Flow uses significantly less energy than reported by other protocols. “At Deloitte, we are always interested in examining what’s next, and when we were approached to create an objective and comprehensive energy consumption review for Flow in 2021, we knew this was the exact challenge we were interested in tackling,” said Nathan Steeghs, partner and national climate lead at Deloitte Canada, in a statement. That means that minting an NFT on Flow takes less energy than a Google search or Instagram post.Īnd how does this stack up to other Web3 platforms? Based on publicly available data - across a variety of sources - Dapper and Deloitte Canada found: Bitcoin uses 178,040 GWh per year, Ethereum uses 108,390, Solana uses 11.05, Polygon uses 0.79, and Flow comes in at the aforementioned 0.18. It requires a ton of energy to complete these operations.īlockchain games utilize proof-of-stake blockchains like Solana, Avalanche, Hedera, Polygon, and Immutable X. Proof of Stake doesn’t take much more energy than cloud-based services.įlow uses just 0.18 (gigawatt hours) GWh annually, based on 2021 usage. Proof of Work solves huge cryptographic puzzles to reach consensus, or an agreement that the records of the digital ledger of the blockchain are correct. Register Here Dapper Labs is bringing digital video moments to NFL fans. Join gaming leaders live this October 25-26 in San Francisco to examine the next big opportunities within the gaming industry.