The specifics of this pushback don't seem that strong to me. FTA: 1. "standard method of inferring miners’ collective electricity use from the “hash rate” of

The specifics of this pushback don't seem that strong to me. FTA: 1. "standard method of inferring miners’ collective electricity use from the “hash rate” of networks relies on guessing what kind of mining equipment did the hashing." 2. "The energy-consumption profile of cryptocurrencies leans toward stranded energy and renewables" #2, in particular, is completely irrelevant to how much energy is used - it's just hand waving and saying that some of the energy is renewable. Pushback #1 is just saying there are assumptions about miner efficiency in the energy use estimates - valid point, but it's not really a pushback, just the explicit statement of an assumption the analysis makes. These do not strike me as particularly powerful arguments, especially since one of them (#2) is irrelevant to the question at hand: how much energy does crypto use?