Anyway, the discussion is a good one and I'm glad at least 2 people are concerned about this. This is exactly the kind of thing we should be truth-seeking on, as well as finding use cases... not if Wall Street is finally allowing people who don't know any better to keep fueling the beast.
[0] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#validati... [1] https://digiconomist.net/re-serious-faults-in-beci
Alex of Digiconomist is very good at writing long verbose paragraphs that "seem" to support his model, but when we look at his actual data and logic, it's full of holes, flaws, and poor assumptions.
One of the things we both agree on is that in the future (1 year? 10 years?) the ratio will tend toward 40 to 60%. But that doesn't say anything about the ratio as of today.
BECI starts with calculating average mining revenues based on a 439-day (variable) moving average of the Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash prices. Then BECI assumes a fixed 60% share of these revenues are spent on electricity costing $0.05/kWh. That is it. There is nothing sophisticated about his model. His first error is that 60% is not representative of current hardware; real-world data shows the lifetime average percentage is between 6.3% and 38.6%. His second error is that the averaging period is excessively variable and poorly justified: it has increased from 60 and 439 days and changed by twofold his electricity consumption figures.
For more info, see: http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci/
In reality, Bitcoin's consumption is only a third of the power generated by the Three Gorges Dam as of 4 months ago: http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/