Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "pretty green" is not a unit of measurement. PoS is just a bunch of computers largely idling. Whether it's 1k or 10k, it doesn't matter - there is no energy use to speak of, at least none that society has a legitimately interest in regulating. The Tezos Foundation, who's interest is in advertising how green they are, claims in a year they consume as much electricity as 17 individuals ( https://tezos.com/carbon/ ).…
> It is up to critics to provide evidence of PoS energy use being a concern So, is there evidence, as in peer-reviewed studies, that PoS blockchains can handle the volume of transactions of traditional financial systems while requiring LESS energy?
From a literal technical point of view, storing a ledger on 10k computers consumes more energy than than storing it one one. But maybe the backup and operational infrastructure of a bank to manage that one centralized ledger consumes more energy than 10k PoS nodes. But then people also build all kinds of services around those blockchains which require their own computers. In both cases, you get something unique: the blockchain gives you permissionless financial network, your bank gives you a regulated one.
Meanwhile, a single branch of McDonalds consumes many multiples more energy than any PoS blockchain.
My point is really just this: Critics can try to critique PoS blockchains as useless. They may also try to ban them using arguments around say, securities laws or AML. But the energy argument is DoA.