Earlier quoted context omitted.
The collective energy spent by Bitcoin miners equals the energy consumption of Argentina, yet the Bitcoin network only processes a small fraction of the number of transactions per day that Visa processes. For reference, Visa itself consumes only a small fraction as much energy as Argentina. In other words, you must cover the cost of vastly more energy per Bitcoin transaction compared to the mainstream financial syste…
Western Union has a lower transaction rate than Visa, so does that make it necessarily less useful or valuable (either absolutely or per-kilowatt)? Also, as you noted the energy usage is correlated with the value, not the transaction rate. Transaction rate limits could be changed arbitrarily without affecting the energy usage of the coin. However you have the causal relationship backwards: The value of the coin deter…
The transaction rate is not what matters; what matters is the energy spent per transaction. Visa process many more transactions for much less energy than Bitcoin, and is therefore more efficient. I suspect Western Union's energy consumption is roughly in proportion to Visa's, but I have no data (the Visa example comes right out of their annual report, which covers both the number of transactions and amount of energy consumed).
"The electricity spending of miners doesn't determine the value."
The energy cost determines the transaction fees. Higher transaction fees make Bitcoin less valuable by imposing a greater burden on using the system. Yes, there are other factors that determine price of Bitcoin, but if nothing else changed ("all things being equal") then volatility in energy prices would trigger volatility in transaction fees and thus volatility in Bitcoin's overall value.