New Data From CompareForexBrokers Shows Bitcoin Mining Costs Vary 35x by Country

PRESS RELEASE.

CompareForexBrokers has published new research on the environmental cost of Bitcoin mining in 2025. The analysis uses the latest hashrate figures, hardware efficiency benchmarks, and emissions intensity data from the International Energy Agency. The findings show that the environmental cost of producing one Bitcoin can be 35 times larger depending on the country.

According to the study, one Bitcoin mined in Kazakhstan produces nearly 600 tonnes of carbon dioxide, while a Bitcoin mined in Paraguay is linked to fewer than 20 tonnes. This stark contrast demonstrates how geography, electricity mix, and energy infrastructure are now central to the environmental footprint of Bitcoin mining.

The United States remains the largest contributor to global mining activity, with an estimated 38% of the worldwide hashrate. At this scale, US mining produces approximately 325 tonnes of carbon dioxide per coin. With more than 170 coins mined per day, this adds up to over 20 million tonnes of carbon emissions annually. To put this into perspective, this is more than the yearly output of entire countries such as Iceland, Uruguay, or Namibia.

In Kazakhstan, coal-fired power dominates the electricity grid. Nearly one in five watts of national generation is consumed by Bitcoin mining facilities. As a result, the carbon intensity of each Bitcoin produced in Kazakhstan is the highest among the major mining countries. New government fees and taxes have been introduced to curb energy use, but enforcement remains patchy, and coal reliance continues.

By contrast, countries with access to low-cost hydroelectric power generate far lower emissions per coin. In Paraguay, where surplus energy from the Itaipu Dam is used for mining, the carbon cost of one Bitcoin is less than 5% of that produced in Kazakhstan. In Canada, another hydro-rich country, the figure is around 34 tonnes of carbon dioxide per coin, one-tenth of the USA’s level.

The Bitcoin network rewards all hashrate the same, whether it runs on coal, gas, or renewables. For policymakers and investors, though, what matters is the source of that power. Two identical coins can carry very different carbon costs depending on where they are mined.

The environmental differences have implications that go beyond climate concerns. For regulators, the findings raise questions about the concentration of mining activity in coal-heavy regions. For institutional investors, the figures highlight the risks of supporting mining companies that are out of line with sustainability standards.

In the USA, where mining emissions are equivalent to the annual output of more than four million petrol cars, regulators are already taking notice. The Department of Energy has resumed tracking crypto mining loads as part of its monthly reporting framework. Policymakers are considering new measures such as higher fees during peak demand periods, mandatory disclosure of energy sources, and limits on subsidies for energy-intensive facilities.

At the same time, American mining companies are seeking to attract investment by promoting renewable energy use. Some firms are building proprietary solar or wind facilities, while others are signing long-term power agreements with hydroelectric suppliers. These measures can cut costs and emissions significantly, but the industry lacks consistent reporting standards, making it difficult to compare one operator to another.

The issue of emissions is not limited to the US and Kazakhstan. In Ireland, around 8% of national electricity is consumed by Bitcoin mining, much of it in data-centre style facilities. In Singapore, mining accounts for more than 5% of the grid. In both countries, the overall emissions per Bitcoin are lower than in coal-heavy nations, but the share of national electricity use highlights the scale of the sector.

Globally, Bitcoin mining now consumes more than 140,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year, placing the network among the top 30 power users worldwide. If Bitcoin were a country, it would sit just behind Argentina and ahead of Sweden and the Netherlands.

These numbers show that the environmental and economic impact of Bitcoin mining is no longer a marginal issue. In some countries, mining consumes a double-digit share of national electricity output. In others, the emissions per coin exceed those of major industrial processes.

The CompareForexBrokers research concludes that the question of where a Bitcoin is mined is now as important as how. Geography, grid mix, and infrastructure determine not only profitability but also sustainability. With policymakers debating new restrictions and investors placing greater weight on environmental impact, the distribution of global mining may shift again in the years ahead.

_________________________________________________________________________

Bitcoin.com accepts no responsibility or liability, and is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in the article.