This page actually ranks it for you ("Sustainability"):
* https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
Bitcoin would be the 27th most energy using country: ahead of Argentina (30), Sweden (29), and Ukraine (28); just below and about to overtake Malaysia (26), and below Egypt (25) and Poland (24).
Whether Bitcoin actually generates as much (societal?) value as the entire country of Sweden for the electricity it uses? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Argentina#Produ... the cultivated area is 250.000km^2 . Let's assume 1000W/m^2 and a 10% of efficiency, 12 hours of sun per day, and 1/3 of the year of grow of the plants. Then I get 36.5TWh https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=250.000km%5E2+*1000W%2... (I had to guess a lot of things. I'd love to see a more accurate calculation.)
So with an additional energy of 36.5TWh, we jump from 132.7TWh to 169.2TWh that is more than the value of Poland 168.8TWh. (But other countries may want to add their solar->plants power too.)
The whole "wasted energy" is just deflection. It almost always isn't. It's a bit like deflection about the energy use being mostly renewable. That really means hydro, because it's generally the cheapest.
But that power use means other capacity (including coal mines) needs to exist. It can mean extra transmission capacity needs to be built. In the case of towns in New York, for example, miners have raised the electricity prices of everyone as municipalities are forced to buy extra capacity on the open market.
Now all of this would be fine if Bitcoin actually provided value commensurate with that energy consumption. It just doesn't. It's not a currency. It'll never be a currency. It's an asset and any uses thus far have been to evade the laws in various countries.
[1]: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-domest...