Does it matter if Bitcoin uses a lot of energy?

Digiconimist reports that Bitcoin energy use exceeded Argentina in 2021. This feels like a lot of energy because Argentina is a big country. 1,386 kWh per transaction feels like a lot because it is the amount of electricity generated by 1 kw of solar installed in Kansas for one year. 658 kg of CO2 feels like a lot of carbon dioxide because it is (even if this emissions factor is questionable for a US average and no better than a rough estimate for the world average, which isn’t particularly useful when measuring an essential metric like CO2 emissions).

But what if gross numbers were misleading and relatively useless when talking about computing power used for bitcoin mining? What if the flexibility of the processing power — the ability to ramp up and down as needed on a moment’s notice — is much more valuable to electric grip operations, renewable integration and emissions reduction than simple conservation and efficiency measures that were developed for a time when power generation was mostly inflexible coal plants?

What if the emissions factor of electricity was zero grams per kWh? Would anyone talk about bitcoin electricity use? What if Bitcoin mining could accelerate the transition to zero carbon electricity? Would Digiconimist continue to publish the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index?